HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 PCSR Tassajara Highlands G~��OF��DUhlly
r'i✓19 STAFF REPORT
a2 PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: July 22, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING — PLPA 2012-00051 Tassajara Highlands General
Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development
rezoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site
Development Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8133, and CEQA
Addendum for a 11.11-acre site
Report prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment to reduce the residential and eliminate the commercial uses for an 11.11 acre
Project Site which is comprised of two separate existing parcels – (1) 4.95 acres designated
Medium Density Residential, and (2) 6.16 acres designated Neighborhood Commercial (3.51
acres) and Medium-High Density Residential (2.65 acres). The amendment would change the
land use designations for the combined sites to Medium Density Residential (6.16 acres) and
Open Space (3.06 acres), with the remainder of the site dedicated as Public Right-of-Way for
Tassajara Road widening and frontage improvements (1.89 acres). A Planned Development
Rezone, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map 8133 have been submitted for a
project of 48 detached single-family homes. The Project includes four floor plans with 4 or 5
bedrooms ranging in size from 2,718 square feet to 3,159 square feet and available in three
architectural styles. Lots would range in size from 3,671 square feet to 6,907 square feet at an
overall density of 6.92 units per acre. A CEQA Addendum is also included.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff
presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public;
4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the
City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum with CEQA mitigation findings and a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Tassajara Highlands project; 6) Adopt a Resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving amendments to the General
Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; 7) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council
adopt an Ordinance rezoning the project site to PD-Planned Development with related Stage 1
and Stage 2 Development Plan; and 8) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council adopt a
resolution approving a Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map 8133.
Submitted By Reviewed By
Consulting Planner Assistant Community Development Director
COPIES TO: Applicant Item 8.3
File
Page 1 of 14
GAPAI20121PLPA-2012-00051 Fredrich GPA Initiation RequeshPC Mtg 7.22.14 Tassajara Highlands Frederick VargaslSTAFF REPORT W
A TTA CHMENTSIPCSR 7-22.14 Tassajara Highlands.doc
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Project Site
The Tassajara Highlands project is proposed to be constructed on an 11.11-acre site currently
comprised of two separate parcels: 1) the Fredrich property is a 6.16-acre parcel located at
6960 Tassajara Road (APN 985-0004-007-03), and 2) the Vargas property is a 4.95-acre parcel
located at 7020 Tassajara Road (APN 985-0004-007-01) to the north, immediately north of the
first parcel.
The southern portion of the site is triangularly shaped and characterized as a low hilltop. A
tributary of Tassajara Creek, referred to as Moller Creek, flows beneath Tassajara Road and
runs across the southerly portion of this parcel. The drainage area is vegetated with dense
trees, shrubs, and ground cover but also supports sparse riparian vegetation. A single-family
residence with ancillary agriculture-related structures is on the southern portion of the site. The
northern portion of the site includes a single-family residence and ancillary structures.
A number of native and ornamental trees exist on the Tassajara Highlands site, but none of the
trees in the development are considered Heritage Trees.
TO DANVXLE
8 SAN RAMON
p r COUNI.O1L
COSTA .
w
ONTRA • -
p rA�UN
•lx
COS:p�� •OF UU� 'N y TRACT MAP No. 8102
CON7,,:•CUNSY PROJECT _ 'sy YESTlN PROGRESS MAP
..MFpA 5lTE r
A� LIN PROPERTY
Q
x
�Q
CAMP PARKS
PARKS RESERVE FORM
TRAINING AREA
p�
1
f s�
x
G1£ASO+Y Ri
VICINITY MAP
2of14
Adjacent and Surrounding Land Uses:
Uses surrounding the proposed Tassajara Highlands project site include:
• North — The project site tapers to a point at its northerly boundary with Tassajara Road
and Tassajara Creek. Moller Ranch and the Tipper properties, both currently vacant,
are located to the north of the project site.
• South — A fragment of the area designated for Neighborhood Commercial use remains
south of the project site. This area will be reconfigured for drainage and water quality
improvements, publicly-owned open space, and additional circulation improvements for
the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road intersection.
• To the east — Moller Ranch and Chateau are located across Tassajara Road.
• To the west — The Tassajara Creek stream corridor runs along the westerly boundary of
the project site with Wallis Ranch located further west.
Current Request
The Applicant proposes to develop a project of 48 detached single-family homes with four floor
plans with 4 or 5 bedrooms ranging in size from 2,718 square feet to 3,159 square feet and
available in three architectural styles. Lots would range in size from 3,671 square feet to 6,907
square feet at an overall density of 6.92 units per acre.
The current request for the proposed Tassajara Highlands project entitlements include:
• General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment — Amending the land uses to reduce
residential densities and eliminate the commercial land use designations.
• Planned Development Rezoning — Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage
1 and Stage 2 Development Plan.
• Site Development Review — to construct a neighborhood of 48 single-family detached
homes with related site improvements, open space, and peripheral public improvements.
• Vesting Tentative Map 8133 - to allow the subdivision of 48 lots for detached single-
family homes.
• CEQA Addendum — CEQA Addendum analyzing the environmental impacts of the
proposed Tassajara Highlands project.
ANALYSIS:
General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
The Applicant proposes to amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land uses
as shown in Table 1, below.
3of14
TABLE 1: Land Uses — Existing and Proposed
7Fredrich isting Acres +/- Proposed Acres
FUse Vargas Total Fredrich Vargas Total %
0 2.65 -2.65 0 0 0 0
0 3.51 -3.51 0 0 0 0
MDR 4.95 4.95 +1.21 4.08 2.08 6.16 55.5%
Os 0 0 0 +3.06 2.08 .98 3.06 27.5%
r/w 0 0 0 +1.89 0 1.89 1.89 17%
Total 6.16 4.95 11.11 - 6.16 4.95 11.11 100%
The existing land use for the Vargas property is Medium Density Residential which allows 30-
99 units. The existing land uses for the Fredrich property include Medium-High Density
Residential and Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Based on the existing land uses,
approximately 37 to 66 units and 92,000 square feet of commercial could be accommodated
within that acreage and density range. The NC land use designation is the remnant of a
commercial area originally anticipated at the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road interchange known
as Tassajara Village. Combined, the Fredrich and Vargas properties would have allowed
between 67 and 165 units.
The City Council re-evaluated the Tassajara Village concept based on a division of the area
by Tassajara Creek and the restrictions on development created by the natural features,
topography, and preservation requirements. The non-residential uses in the vicinity of the
proposed Tassajara Village west of Tassajara Creek were re-designated for open space,
environmental conservation features, and recreational amenities as part of the original Wallis
Ranch project in 2007. However, no concepts were addressed or proposed for the Fredrich
property lying immediately east of Tassajara Creek. Therefore, the commercial uses within
the Tassajara Village concept plan have remained in place on the Fredrich property.
The completed improvement plans for the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road intersection have
further defined the development parcels within this area. The feasibility of configuring viable
neighborhood commercial uses with adequate access on the site has effectively been
eliminated due to the topography and natural drainage related to the adjacent Tassajara Creek
and location of its tributary, Moller Creek, which crosses the southerly portion of the Fredrich
property.
The existing and proposed General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations are
shown below. The proposed residential land uses on the two properties allow 38 to 86
residential units. However, the PD analysis locks in the unit count at 48 detached units (6.92
du/acre).
4of14
Existing General Plan Land Uses Proposed General Plan Land Uses
TASSAJAR.!HIGHLANDS EXISTING GENERAL PUN LAND USES TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USED
,
„w. 77 -1-1
-C
The requested amendments to the General Plan and EDSP would require adjustments to
various figures, texts, and tables in the General Plan and EDSP to ensure consistency
throughout the documents. A Resolution recommending City Council approval of an
amendment to the General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is included as Attachment 1 with
the City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A.
Planned Development Zoning
The requested action is a Planned Development (PD) rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage
2 Development Plan. The PD Rezoning addresses the plan currently proposed for 48 single-
family detached homes with related site improvements, open space, and public improvements.
The Development Regulations for the Tassajara Highlands project have been proposed as
compatible standards adopted for other single-family detached MDR projects in the vicinity.
The proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan includes the following. Please refer to
Attachment 2, Exhibit A for the complete Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan:
1. A list of permitted, conditional and accessory uses
2. Site plan
3. Development densities by land use
4. Phasing Plan
5. Master Landscape Plan
6. Grading
7. Development Regulations/Standards
8. Architectural Design Standards
9. Landscape Design Standards
10.Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
A Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Planned
Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Tassajara
Highlands project is included as Attachment 2. The Development Regulations for the proposed
project are included as Exhibit A to Attachment 2.
5 of 14
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The proposed project includes demolishing the existing structures and subdividing the site into
48 detached single family homes with related site improvements, open space, and peripheral
public improvements. The following is a discussion of project components. The project plans
are included as Attachment 3.
Access & Circulation
The Tassajara Highlands project would be accessed from a private main entry road from
Tassajara Road (See Attachment 3, Page SDR 11). This access point will be signalized at its
intersection with Tassajara Road. It would line up with the future entrance road to Moller Ranch
to be developed on the east side of Tassajara Road. The project will have a private circulation
system with an interior north-south loop that would terminate in a cul-de-sac at the northerly
portion of the site. To the south, the roadway would circulate through the residential
subdivision. The main access road would have a 5-foot sidewalk along its south side separated
from the travel lane by a 6-foot landscape strip.
The internal streets would have a paved width of 28 feet and a 5-foot sidewalk on both sides of
the street situated at the back of curb. Three private driveways (A, B, and C) with sidewalk on
both sides provide access to six homes from the Loop Road. A sidewalk will be provided along
the southern portion of the project along Tassajara Road adjacent to the project is near the
Moller Creek drainage culvert and open space in the south part of the project which extends
pedestrian access to Private Drive B or leads to a trail within the open space corridor along the
westerly boundary of the project adjacent to Tassajara Creek. Emergency Vehicle Access is
provided along the project perimeter.
Site Layout/Plotting
Individual lots would be oriented towards the interior roads with exception of seven lots — the 6
lots taking access from a private driveway (Lots, 25, 26, 27, 28, 45, and 46) and Lot 4 with a
side orientation near the Creekview Court cul-de-sac. Lot sizes for the single-family residences
would generally range from a minimum of 3,671 square feet to 6,907 square feet.
As with previously approved SDRs within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, a flexible
plotting scheme would be allowed whereby any of the four approved floor plans may be
constructed on any of the 48 lots, with some exceptions identified on the plotting plan
(Attachment 3, Sheet SDRA), as shown in the floor plan "fit list" for each lot (Attachment 3,
Sheet SDR.5), and in compliance with the other conditions described below. The fit list
identifies which floor plans, with or without an optional loggia along the rear, would fit on each lot
and not exceed the maximum coverage of 55%.
As with the other neighborhoods, the purpose of allowing this flexibility is to enhance sales and
marketing while maintaining sufficient diversity along the street scene. Also, the ability to plot
any house on any lot will add a more distinctive look to the neighborhood and eliminates the
repetitious look of many subdivisions. The parameters for this plotting provision would be
applied as follows:
6of14
with a native meadow mix, providing a layered transition from the residential community
to the undisturbed open space along Tassajara Creek that would be drought resistant
and typical of native plants. The open space buffers along the stream corridor also are
anticipated to serve as wildlife corridors. Therefore, the common area landscaping is
proposed to be deer-resistant.
The southerly portion of the project site will continue to function as drainage with
enhancements for storm drain bio-retention purposes related to the project site and
secondarily for Moller Creek, a tributary of Tassajara Creek. The Moller Ranch project on
the east side of Tassajara Road has been designed with bio-retention measures on its
site; however, Moller Creek drainage will be directed under Tassajara Road into a culvert
on the west side served by Parcel C of the Tassajara Highlands site. Parcels B and D
would serve as clean water detention basins on either side of the culvert, and the
adjacent City owned open space at the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road intersection, would
function as an area-wide detention basin. The bio-retention areas along the southerly
boundary of the site would be screened with vegetation.
In addition, two small private open space areas (shown as Parcels F and G) are located
among the lots within the site - one at the north end and one at the south end.
The Landscape Plans also indicate the type and styles of walls and fencing that will be used
within the project. A community identification/entrance wall would be located at the project
entrance at Tassajara Road and the main project entrance. It will be 2.5 feet to 3 feet tall with
the neighborhood name.
A pre-cast sound barrier wall, six to eight feet in height (See Attachment 3, Page L.2), is
proposed to be constructed along the Tassajara Road right-of-way from the most northerly lot
south to Private Drive B; it would have with columns located every 35 feet or at a change in
grade. A number of retaining walls, ranging in height from approximately 1 foot to 8 feet, are
proposed to be constructed south of Private Drive B and at various locations on the east side of
the project site adjacent to Tassajara Road. Landscaping would be installed between the edge
of Tassajara Road and any walls (See Attachment 3, Page L.2).
Other fences include (See Attachment 3, Page L.6):
- Good Neighbor Fences — 6-foot tall vertical board fence between lots.
- Lattice Fence —Vertical wood fence visible from the public right-of-way, such as for
corner lots.
- Ornamental Iron Guardrail — 42-inch high railing along retaining walls or adjacent to
sidewalks.
- Basin Fence — 6-foot tall, vinyl-clad mesh with 2-inch metal posts.
Streetscape — Streetscape improvements generally are addressed in the landscape plans. All
project streets, perimeter sidewalks, interior sidewalks, paths, and common areas are shaded
and enhanced by trees and plantings within the front setback of each lot.
Architecture
Styles/Elevations - The architectural styles proposed for the four floor plans are: (A) Spanish,
(B) French Country, and (C) English. The styles are intended to complement the architecture of
neighboring subdivisions and also capitalize on its elevation for outstanding view corridors.
Roof materials are flat concrete the for French Country and English and concrete low-profile S-
tile for Spanish. Exterior material for all three styles primarily is stucco. Standard forms and
8of14
elements typical to each style include: roof and window forms, exterior accent materials, window
trims and accents, and decoration and embellishments. Roll-up garage doors would be installed
specific to each style and coordinated with each color scheme. Each style generally is
described as follows:
(A) Spanish — This style is characterized by low-profile gable-roof forms with concrete S-
tiles and shed or gable projections. Gable end embellishments are decorative carved or
sculpted ornaments or wrought iron details. Exterior material is primarily stucco. The
entry on each plan is accented with an arch. The arch is also a feature of prominent
ground floor windows and upper level balconies. Each plan includes at least one
grouping of windows in two or more with simple mullion patterns. Windows also may be
framed with paneled shutters, heavy trim, and enhanced sills. Balconies may have
sculpted cantilevers, corbelled supports, wooden posts (when not arched), and
decorative iron railings. French doors are featured on the front deck of Plans 3 and 4,
along with a boxed and corbelled window enhancement over the entry on Plan 3.
(B) French Country — This style features hip roof forms with hip or gable roof projections.
In addition to the stucco, exterior accent materials include cultured stone veneer in three
styles and/or cementitious horizontal siding or shingles. Gable end embellishments are
simple niches or siding. Front entries are arched on Plans 3 and 4. Windows typically
would be paired or grouped and accented with paneled shutters and heavy sills that are
formed or corbelled. The mullion pattern would be multi-paned. Projections and
balconies supports may display heavy beams or be sculpted. Balcony railings are
decorative wood, and balcony posts are wood with kicker supports. First and second
floor maybe delineated with a heavy wood-like band or bowed form.
(C) English — Roof forms for this style are hip with gable or shed projections. In addition
to the stucco, exterior accent materials include brick or cultured stone veneer. Gable end
embellishments include cementitious board and batt siding or stylized vents. Window
and door forms are straight and formal framed by paneled or plank shutters and heavy
sills and headers. Windows are grouped or sequential with a multi-paned mullion pattern.
Upper level windows are boxed and supported with narrow iron corbels, and lower level
accent windows are boxed with a stone or brick base. Balconies are supported with
heavy beam and corbels with a decorative iron railing. First and second floors maybe
delineated with a heavy wood-like band.
Each elevation style is available in three color schemes for a total of 12 color schemes. All
elevations visible from the public right-of-way would have enhanced architectural detailing on
several elevations.
Floor Plans
Each of the four floor plans is two stories. Floor plans are offered as a four-bedroom unit with
optional build out of a fifth bedroom.
The ground floor of each unit is arranged as a "great room" with open living, nook, and kitchen
areas. All Great Rooms have a fireplace. All kitchens have an island and walk-in pantry. Each
unit has direct access to the two-car garage through a "drop zone." All plans allow for the
optional construction of an outdoor loggia along the rear of the ground floor adjacent to the living
area with an optional upper level deck provided that it would not cause lot coverage to exceed
55%. The loggia would range in size from 164 square feet to 204 square feet, and the upper
level deck would be accessible from the Master Bedroom and (except for Plan 4) to the loft or
fifth bedroom. At a minimum, each plan is provided with a ground floor bedroom and adjacent
9of14
full bathroom which may be configured en suite or remain generally accessible from the ground
floor. All plans have a covered front porch.
On the second floor, each unit has at least 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, and a loft which may be
built out as a fifth bedroom. The master bedroom with en suite bathroom has at least one walk-
in closet. Each Master bathroom has dual basins, separate water closet, and separate tub and
shower. All secondary bathrooms on the second floor have dual basins. All laundry rooms are
on the second floor and can accommodate an optional wash basin.
All floor plans offer a Universal Design Ordinance (UDO - handicapped accessible) option. Plan
2 could be configured with a "granny flat" having separate access from outdoors. Floor plan
details are shown in Table 2, below.
TABLE 2: Floor Plans
Plan Square Bedrooms Bathrooms Parking Elevations Stories
Feet
1 2,718 sf 4 + loft or 3 2 A, B, & C 2
1 or dining
4 + loft or 1 or 3 + ,/2
2 2,829 sf 4 + dining, den, or 2 A, B, & C 2
granny flat
3 2,980 sf 4 + loft or 1 (suite) 3 +1 2 A, B, & C 2
and dining or den
4 3,159 sf 4 + loft or 1 3 2 A, B, & C 2
and dining or den
Total
Elevations: (A) Spanish, (B) French Country, and (C) English
In addition to the features described above, the floor plans are described as follows:
Plan 1 — Plan 1 is the smallest at 2,718 square feet, and in addition to all of the features
mentioned above, includes a large indoor storage closet.
Plan 2 — Plan 2 is slightly larger than Plan 1 at 2,829 square feet. A separate dining area
off of the entry may be built out as a den or this area combined with the downstairs
bedroom may be built our as a 379 square foot "granny" suite with separate outdoor
access to living, kitchenette, sleeping quarters, and full bathroom. Under this option, the
large indoor storage closet may be built out as a powder room for the primary home.
Plan 3 — At 2,980 square feet, Plan 3 also offers the build option for the separate dining
room as a den. It also allows the loft area to be built out as a fifth bedroom suite with full
en suite bathroom and walk-in closet. For the Spanish style, Bedroom 3 at the front of
the second would have access to a front deck or balcony.
Plan 4 — Plans 4 is the largest at 3,159 square feet. This plan also offers the build out
option of a separate dining room or den on the ground floor and has the smallest loggia
option. The loft or fifth bedroom option on this plan is located at the front of the second
level with access to a front deck or balcony for all three elevation styles.
10 of 14
Parking - As with most single-family detached projects, each unit requires two enclosed parking
spaces plus one guest space per unit that may be provided curbside, on the driveway, or in
dedicated parking areas. Based on this standard, the residential parking required for the
Tassajara Highlands project would 96 enclosed spaces and 48 guest spaces for a total of 144
spaces. The enclosed parking requirement is satisfied by the two-car garages provided with
each unit for a total of 96 enclosed parking spaces. Guest space parking is satisfied in
driveways (2 spaces each, for an additional 96 spaces), curbside along internal streets (26
spaces), four spaces at the ends of private driveways "A" and "C," and five perpendicular
parking spaces in dedicated areas for a total of 131 guest spaces; 227 spaces would be
provided by the project overall. The location of parking provided is shown on Attachment 3,
Sheet SDR.7.
A Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Site
Development Review is included as Attachment 4 with the City Council resolution included as
Exhibit A.
Affordable Housing/Inclusionary Zoning — The proposed Tassajara Highlands project would
be subject to Chapter 8.68 of the Zoning Ordinance, Inclusionary Zoning regulations, which
require 12.5% of the units as income restricted for sale to low and moderate income
households. Therefore, the developer is required to provide 6 affordable units. Due to the
location of the site, with no proximity to a significant transportation network or convenient goods
and services, the Applicant is proposing an "alternative method of compliance" in accordance
with Section 8.68.040.A to supply their obligation. This method of compliance is included as a
Condition of Approval No. 15, Attachment 4, Exhibit A.
Public Art Compliance — The proposed project is subject to a Public Art Compliance Report
The Public Art Compliance Report and its findings will determine the trigger point by which this
project complies with or is exempt from the Public Art program which typically would be satisfied
by a public art installation or payment of in-lieu fees. An appropriate Condition of Approval has
been included. (See Attachment 4; Exhibit A, Condition of Approval #14).
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
The Vesting Tentative Map 8133 (See Attachment 3, Vesting Tentative Map tab) generally
subdivides the 11.11-acre project site as follows:
TABLE 3: Vesting Tentative Map 8133
Parcel Area Use Description
Medium Density Residential Single Family
Lots 1-48 4.8673 Detached 48 units
A 1.9641 Medium Density Residential private streets and parking
B 0.0521 Open Space (within development area) private open space
private open
C 2.1097 Open Space space/preservation
D 0.0480 Open Space (within development area) private open space
E 0.5423 Open Space clean water detention basins
R/W 0.6223 Medium Density Residential Right-of-Way Tassajara Road
Transfer 0.9067 Open Space Moller Creek culvert
TOTAL 11.11
11 of 14
Conditions of Approval are included in the Resolution recommending approval (Attachment 4,
Exhibit A) including drainage improvements, habitat preservation, dedication of right-of-way, and
coordination of perimeter off-site improvements with the areawide coordination of traffic and
circulation improvements, especially with regard to Tassajara Road.
CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE
The application includes proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map 8133. The
proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning with related Development Plans
would be consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended. The
proposed project will contribute to housing opportunities and diversity of product type as a
complement to the surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and
Sustainability Element of the General Plan. The Applicant intends to exceed the City of Dublin
Green Building Ordinance and will exceed the 50 point threshold in the City's program. In
general, the proposed project furthers the goals of the Community Design and Sustainability
Element of the General Plan by providing a high quality of life and preserving resources and
opportunities for future generations.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services
and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project to ensure that the Project is
established in compliance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval
from these departments and agencies are included in the Resolution (Attachment 4, Exhibit A)
approving Site Development Review and Subdivisions.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A CEQA Addendum dated July 2014 has been prepared to address the proposed project.
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA implementing regulations, the City has
determined that: (i) the proposed project remains within the scope of the previous
environmental assessments of the development programs which have included the Project Site,
and (ii) subject to continued implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the proposed
project will not result in any significant environmental effects that already have not been
evaluated and addressed.
The project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, which was the subject of an
Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan (SCH # 91103064), certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 51-93 and Addenda
dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994. The General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR is a
program EIR, which anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development in
Eastern Dublin and identified some impacts from implementation of the General Plan
Amendment/Specific Plan that could not be mitigated. Upon certification of the EIR, the City
adopted a statement of overriding considerations for such impacts. The City also adopted a
mitigation-monitoring program, which included numerous measures intended to reduce impacts
from the development of the Eastern Dublin area.
12 of 14
Since the two parcels comprising the Project Site were annexed at different times,
environmental impacts related to potential development during the initial planning stages also
were separately addressed. The 6.16 acre parcel was included in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing annexation adopted on May 16, 2006 by City
Council Resolution No. 71-06. The 4.95 acre parcel was addressed in 2007 as an Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) adopted by City Council Resolution 57-07 (SCH #2007032020)
and was annexed concurrently with the property known as Moller Ranch. Copies of the
environmental documents in reference are available for review at Dublin City Hall during normal
business hours.
A Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum is attachment as
Attachment 5 with the City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A.
PUBLIC NOTICING:
In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants
within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing.
A public notice also was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations
throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution recommending City Council approval of General
Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the
Tassajara Highlands project.
2. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an
Ordinance rezoning the Tassajara Highlands project site to
PD-Planned Development and approving a related Stage 1
and Stage 2 Development Plan, with Ordinance attached as
Exhibit A, Landscape Design Standards as Attachment 1 to
Exhibit A and Architectural Design Standards as Attachment 2
to Exhibit A.
3. Applicant's submittal package dated June 5, 2014
4. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a
Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit and
Vesting Tentative Map 8133 for the Tassajara Highlands
Project, with the City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit
A.
5. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA
Addendum (for the Tassajara Highlands project) to the
Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report with City Council
Resolution attached as Exhibit A, with the CEQA Addendum
as Exhibit A, Statement of Overriding Considerations as
Exhibit B and the Initial Study as Exhibit C to the Ordinance.
13 of 14
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: Tim Lewis Communities and STL Company LLC
3300 Douglass Boulevard, Building 400, Suite 450
Roseville, CA 94661
Attn: Tim Lewis
PROPERTY OWNERS: Thomas A. & Helene L. Fredrich
6960 Tassajara Road
Dublin, CA 94568
Jose & Violetta Vargas
7020 Tassajara Road
Dublin, CA 94568
LOCATION: 6960 and 7020 Tassajara Road - The project site is
bounded by Tassajara Road on the East, Tassajara
Creek/Wallis Ranch project on the west; Moller Ranch on
the northeast (across Tassajara Road); the Singh property
(formerly Tipper property) on the northwest; and City-
owned open space/right-of-way for the Fallon
Road/Tassajara Road intersection on the south.
(APNs 986-0004-002-01 and 986-0004-002-03)
ZONING: Existin — PD-Medium Density Residential, PD-Medium
High Density Residential, and PD-Neighborhood
Commercial
Proposed— PD-Medium Density Residential and PD-Open
Space
GENERAL PLAN & EASTERN
DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN: Existing— Medium Density Residential (MDR), Medium
High Density Residential (MHDR), and Neighborhood
Commercial (NC)
Proposed— Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Open
Space (OS)
SURROUNDING USES:
LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF
PROPERTY
Northeast PD Low Density Residential (LDR), Rural Vacant (Moller Ranch)
Residential/Agriculture (RR/A) open space and agriculture
Northwest PD Medium Density Residential (MDR), Vacant /agriculture
Stream Corridor (SC) (Tipper/Singh property)
Road right-of-way, drainage
South PD Open Space corridor, and
public open space,
Low Density Residential (LDR), Rural Open space, vacant (Moller
East PD Residential/Agriculture (RR/A), Open Ranch), and single-family
Space/ Stream Corridor Stream residential under construction
Corridor (OS/SC) (Chateau at Fallon Crossin )
West PD Stream Corridor (SC) Tassajara Creek and vacant
(approved as Wallis Ranch)
14 of 14
RESOLUTION NO. 14-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS (FREDRICH/VARGAS) PROJECT
PLPA-2012-00051
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Tim Lewis Communities and STL Company LLC, proposes to
create a development of 48 single-family detached homes on an 11 .11 acre site known as the
Frederick and Vargas properties. The proposed development and applications are collectively
known as the "Project", and
WHEREAS, the application includes a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment to change the land use designations from: Medium-High Density Residential and
Neighborhood Commercial and combining the existing Medium Density Residential to a
combination of Medium Density Residential (6.16 acres) and Open Space (3.06 acres) and 1 .89
acres of associated road right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the application also includes Planned Development rezoning with a related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map 8133; and
WHEREAS, the Project also includes a CEQA Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site consists of two existing parcels, the approximately 7.93
gross acre Fredrich property located at 6960 Tassajara Road and the approximately 5 gross
acre Vargas property at 7020 Tassajara Road (APNs 986-0004-002-01 and 986-0004-002-03);
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. To comply with CEQA,
the City prepared an addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and two prior Mitigated Negative
Declarations for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, on July 22, 2014,
at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated July 22, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan and Specific Plan amendments,
for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the CEQA Addendum
and prior CEQA documents and all reports, recommendations and testimony prior to making its
recommendation on the Project.
1
ATTACHMENT 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council of the City of Dublin approve the following amendments to the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan based on findings that the amendments are in the public interest
and that the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as so amended will remain
internally consistent, and that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended is consistent with
the General Plan, as amended (strikeout and bold text will not be shown in the General Plan or
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan).
A. Amend the Land Use Map (Figure 1-1a) of the General Plan to reflect the land uses as
shown below:
TASSAJARA NIGHLANDS PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LANG USES
b
3
i
t
PA
B. Amend the Land Use Map (Figure 4.1) of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to reflect the land
uses as follows: _
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND uses
, }
PA
R^ F
F
C. Amend Table 2.1 in the General Plan to increase the amount of Medium Density Residential by
1.21 acres; decrease Medium High Density Residential by 2.65 acre; increase Open Space by
3.06 acres and reduce Neighborhood Commercial Land Use by 3.51 acres.
D. Amend Table 4.1 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to increase the amount of Medium Density
Residential by 1.21 acres; decrease Medium High Density Residential by 2.65 acre; increase
Open Space by 3.06 acres and reduce Neighborhood Commercial Land Use by 3.51 acres.
2
E. Amend Table 4.2 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to reduce the square fee of allowable
Neighborhood Commercial development employees and population based on reduced acreage
and decrease the number of Medium High Density Residential units and population based on
the acreage reduction and increase the number of Medium Density Residential units and
population.
F. Amend Table 4.3 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the number of dwelling units,
job, employed residents, balance and ratio based on acreage changes.
G. Amend Table 4.10 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to increase the amount of Medium
Density Residential by 1.21 acres; decrease Medium High Density Residential by 2.65 acre;
increase Open Space by 3.06 acres and reduce Neighborhood Commercial Land Use by 3.51
acres.
H. Maps to be updated:
Figure 6.1 - Open Space Framework
I. Appendix 4: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary by Land Owners to reduce the
Neighborhood Commercial acreage on Fredrich by 3.51 acres, eliminate the Medium-High
Density Land Use category, increase the Medium Density Residential Land Use category by
4.08 acres, and increase the Open Space acreage by 2.08 acres and on Vargas change the
Medium Density Residential acreage to 2.08 acres and increase the Open Space acreage by
0.98 acres.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of July 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
2298142.1
3
RESOLUTION NO. 14-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS (FREDRICH/VARGAS) PROJECT SITE TO PD-PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
PLPA 2012-00051
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Tim Lewis Communities and STL Company LLC, proposes to
create a development of 48 single-family detached homes on an 11.11 acre site known as the
Frederick and Vargas properties. The proposed development and applications are collectively
known as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the application includes a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment to change the land use designations from: Medium-High Density Residential and
Neighborhood Commercial and combining the existing Medium Density Residential to a
combination of Medium Density Residential (6.16 acres) and Open Space (3.06 acres) and 1.89
acres of associated road right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the application also includes Planned Development rezoning with a related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map 8133; and
WHEREAS, the Project also includes a CEQA Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site consists of two existing parcels, the approximately 7.93
gross acre Fredrich property located at 6960 Tassajara Road and the approximately 5 gross
acre Vargas property at 7020 Tassajara Road (APNs 986-0004-002-01 and 986-0004-002-03);
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. To comply with CEQA,
the City prepared an addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and two prior Mitigated Negative
Declarations for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public
hearing on the Project, including the proposed PD rezoning, at which time all interested parties
had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated July 22, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the PD rezoning, for the Planning Commission;
and
1
ATTACHMENT 2
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-XX
recommending that the City Council approve a CEQA Addendum for the Project, and Resolution
14-XX recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendments for the Project, which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and
available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the CEQA Addendum
and prior CEQA documents, and all reports, recommendations and testimony prior to making its
recommendations on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the ordinance attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which
ordinance rezones the Tassajara Highlands (FredrichNargas) Project site to Planned
Development and approves a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The Planning
Commission recommendation is based on the Staff Report analysis and recommendation and
on the findings set forth in the attached Draft Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of July 2014, by the following
votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
2276820.1
ORDINANCE NO. XX— 14
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
REZONING THE TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS (FREDRICH/VARGAS) PROJECT SITE TO A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1
AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PLPA 2012-00051
The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
A. The Applicant, Tim Lewis Communities and STL Company LLC, proposes to develop 48
single-family detached homes on an 11.11 acre site. The applications include a General
Plan/Specific Plan amendment to change the land use designations from Medium-High Density
Residential, Neighborhood Commercial and Medium Density Residential to a combination of
Medium Density Residential (6.16 acres) and Open Space (3.06 acres) and 1.89 acres of
associated road right-of-way. The applications also include a Planned Development rezoning
with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting
Tentative Subdivision Map 8133. The proposed development and applications are collectively
known as the "Project".
B. The Project Site consists of two existing parcels, the approximately 7.93 gross acre Fredrich
property located at 6960 Tassajara Road and the approximately 5 gross acre Vargas property at
7020 Tassajara Road (APNs 986-0004-002-01 and 986-0004-002-03).
C. To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State guidelines and
City environmental regulations, the City prepared an addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and
two prior Mitigated Negative Declarations for the Project.
D. Following a public hearing on July 22, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
14- recommending that the City Council approve the CEQA addendum for the project,
Resolution 14- recommending approval of the Project General Plan and Specific Plan
amendments, and Resolution 14- , recommending approval of the Planned Development
rezoning and related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, which resolutions are incorporated
herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours.
E. A Staff Report, dated , 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and
analyzed the Project, including the Planned Development rezoning and related Stage 1 and 2
Development Plan, for the City Council.
F. On , 2014, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the proposed Planned Development rezoning and related Stage 1 and 2 Development
Plan, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard.
G. On , 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-xx approving the CEQA addendum
and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project, and adopted Resolution
xx-xx approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments for the Project,
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 2
which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall
during normal business hours.
H. The City Council considered the CEQA addendum and related prior CEQA documents and
all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony prior to taking action on the
Project.
SECTION 2: FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows.
1. The Tassajara Highlands Project Planned Development zoning meets the purpose
and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that
creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the
layout and design of the site plan.
2. Development of the Project under the Planned Development zoning and the related
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan will be harmonious and compatible with existing and
future development in the surrounding area in that the site will provide residential
development consistent with the surrounding development by providing unique floor plan
designs and the incorporation of open space components while also being sensitive to
the adjacent creek and conservation area.
B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds
as follows.
1. The Planned Development zoning for the Project and the related Stage 1 and 2
Development Plan will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential
development in the surrounding area in that the proposed site plan has taken into
account sensitive adjacencies and will provide a wide range of amenities to the
surrounding neighborhoods.
2. The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district
being proposed in that the Project maintains the general character and density of
adjacent development. The project site conditions are documented in the certified
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the environmental impacts that have been identified
will be mitigated to the greatest degree possible, and the project will implement all
adopted mitigation measures. There are no site conditions that were identified in the EIR
that will present an impediment to development of the site for the intended purposes.
There are no major physical or topographic constraints and thus the site is physically
suitable for the type and intensity of the retail commercial center approved through the
Planned Development zoning.
3. The Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and
standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures. The Project uses are
compatible with surrounding uses.
2
4. The Planned Development zoning is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as
amended, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, in that the proposed
residential uses are consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use
designations for the site.
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council approved a CEQA
addendum and Statement of Overriding Considerations on , 2014, as set forth in
Resolution , which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review
at City Hall during normal business hours.
SECTION 3: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning
Map is amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning
District:
11.11 acres at 6960 and 7020 Tassajara Road (APNs 986-0004-002-01 and 986-0004-
002-03) ("Project site", or "Property").
A map of the rezoning area is shown below:
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS STAGE / PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA ffARpl i,?013
xvum:cKiIrIR x m+3
MMMIEW Aur it w+.
! / Nws AKY t any
TRANSFER PARCH
PER E.CCNA
/ �PROPOSED MW
DEDCATION 1
I ,
r
r PROPOSED ;
s r MEDIUM DENSITY t
r r r EXISTING t RESIDENTIAL i \
r r "DIDM DENSJTY w}1 \
r
I �\
PROPOSED MEDWM m
DENSRY RESIDEN77AL +'
EE r
r`
r
rr
PA
L— —
3
SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Project site are
set forth in the following Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for the Project area, which is hereby
approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan shall be in accordance
with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors.
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for the Tassajara Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) Project
This is a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements for both a Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan set forth in Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and is adopted as part of
the Planned Development rezoning for the Tassajara Highlands project, PLPA-2012-00051.
The Planned Development District and this Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan provides flexibility
to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action
programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are
satisfied.
1. Statement of Permitted, Conditional and Accessory Uses.
PD — Medium Density
Permitted Uses
• Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.40.030 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance
• Combinations of attached or detached dwelling, zero-lot line units, duplexes,
townhouses, multi-family dwellings
• Home occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
• Multi-Family Dwelling Unit
• Nursing homes for not more than three patients
• Single-family Dwelling Unit
Conditional Uses
• Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a conditional use
• Assisted living facility
• Bed and Breakfast inns
• Community clubhouse
• Community facilities
• Hospital in districts requiring not more than fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet of
building site area per dwelling unit
• Large family day care homes
• Medical or residential care facility (7 or more clients)
• Mobile home parks, as regulated by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
• Parking lot, as regulated in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
• Plant nursery or greenhouse used only for the cultivation of plant materials
(wholesale only)
• Public and Semi-Public Facilities
4
PD Open Space
Permitted Uses, including, but not limited to:
• Agriculture and grazing
• Conservation areas
• Public or private infrastructure
• Public or private recreation facility- active or passive
• Streams and drainage protection corridors
• Those uses allowed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 and
1600 agreements.
• Trails and maintenance roads, including emergency vehicle access
• Trail staging area
• Other educational or recreational facilities:
• Water quality, drainage, and other similar facilities, including swales and basins
• Wildlife habitat preservation areas
• Other similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director
2. Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan.
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS STAGE l/ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
JUNE 1,,2013
CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA —c 1V.A&VUS1 u.m+3
R""PC Me AMfR 70.W13
RAMS£D.WY I2,1014
.� rt
ti� t
r
s1 � `4L w �f \ �\\♦`
•J 'n w
- r \'
�r- 7 ✓ 1-y J �I "�
J '�R ff
p.A SIB II.
5
3. Site area, proposed densities.
Pro osed Use Fredrich Vargas Ac %
Fm�HDR 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
DR 4.08 6.16 55.5%
OS 2.08 3.06 27.5%
subtotal
r/w 0 1.89 17%
Total 6.16 4.95 11.11 100%
The density of the site is 6.92 du/ac
4. Development regulations.
SINGLE FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Typical Lot Width 45.0'
Minimum Lot Size 3,670
Minimum Street Frontage width @ cul-de-sac 50'
Maximum Lot Coverage 55%
Maximum Building Height 35'
Maximum Stories 2
Minimum Front Yard Setbacks:
Living Area 8'
Porch/Deck 8'
Garage (front facing) 19'
Minimum Side Yard Setbacks:
First Floor 4'
Upper Floors 4'
Corner Lot 8'
Porch/Deck 4'
Encroachments 2' max into required setback
Minimum Rear Yard Setbacks to Living Area 8'
Usable Private Rear Yard Space 400 sf min. flat area, minimum depth 8.0'
Required Parking 2 in garage, 1 guest
Notes:
1. Front yard setbacks are measured from the property line which is the back of the
sidewalk.
2. 60% of homes backing up to open space or public streets will have a minimum 10'
setback at the rear elevation.
3. Two-story homes can have "nested" tirhd floor living space within the roofline.
4. Side yard encroachments may include window bays, chimneys, furring or other
architectural projections. A minimum of 3' clear passage must be proved for
emergency responders.
5. For lots less than 5,000 square feet in size, mechanical equipment that generates
noise (such as swimming pool, spa and air conditioning equipment on the property
shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of
50 dBA at any time.
6
5. Phasing Plan. Phase I backbone infrastructure will be installed with the area constructed.
The individual homes will be constructed in 5 phases of up to 11 homes per phase.
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS TEMPORARY PHASING PLAN
CITY OF OUBUN, CALIFORNIA JULY 1, 2014
_ � y
, i
R40awces,Inc.
1W 1 A
6. Preliminary/Master Neighborhood Landscape Plan.
a � -.. ..• MYn�tLMlHa.aahU 11�YIW�1'w11M�rIM�IM
.- I� . '"at�aa7•exala0.aaY 1, �� �.� _ w .�
x.x msia _`� ••••
t ^7 i . �ti0fi47t+6ffiilik«• ..: E`er" ; i�:
� IL:'� ,:.as•�y°' �.`. cs.� alms Is
_ __Tassa'ara Highlands
L
... TIM 1 tt95 C0�1 V 1 N 1111< 10 J i3
a
Dublin, California
....-. ......... ...._�_ .....
Preliminan Landscape Plan
&Site Details "
7
7. Architectural Standards. See Exhibit A to this Ordinance.
8. Landscape Standards. See Exhibit B to this Ordinance.
9. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The project is subject to Chapter 8.68 of the Zoning
Ordinance, Inclusionary Zoning regulations, which require 12.5% of the units as income
restricted for sale to low and moderate income households. The developer is required to
provide 6 affordable units. An "alternative method of compliance," will be provided in
accordance with Section 8.68.040.A.
10. Aerial Photo.
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS PROJECT CONTEXT EXHIBIT
JUNE U.?013
CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA �-A�f u met
'KY1!!O:OECAr6t M te»
rrr „i,
V
1
y
11. Applicable Requirements of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically provided in
this Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, the use, development, improvement and
maintenance of the property shall be governed by the provisions of the closest
comparable Zoning District as determined by the Community Development Director and
of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 8.32.060.0 except as provided in the
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. No development shall occur on this property
until a Site Development Review permit has been approved for the property.
12. Compliance with adopted Mitigation Measures. The Applicant/Developer shall comply
with all adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2006 and 2007 Mitigated
Negative Declarations, as applicable.
SECTION 5. PRIOR PD ZONING SUPERSEDED Ordinance No. 10-07 establishing the
existing PD zoning is superseded as to the Project site.
8
SECTION 6. POSTING OF ORDINANCE
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of
the State of California.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this
day of 2014, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
2298306.1
9
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS
SITING CRITERIA
It is important to create a street scene that provides visual quality and variety. Visual quality and
variety can be accomplished by siting homes with varying setbacks, reversing plans so that garages
and entries are adjacent to each other where possible, and providing architectural massing relief
through porches, bays and other single story elements,along the street. Where sides and rears of
homes can be viewed from streets or open space, articulation of these elevations is important as
well. This can be accomplished by providing architectural massing relief through varied setbacks.
Development Standards are shown on the following page.
RECEIVED
JUL 10 2014
DUBLIN PLANNING
ARCHITECTURE p a g e 1
EXHIBIT A
SINGLE FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
Typical Lot Width 45:0'
Minimum Lot Size 3,670
Minimum Street Frontage width @ cul-de-sac 50'
Maximum Lot Coverage 55%
Maximum Building Height 35'
Maximum Stories 2
Minimum Front Yard Setbacks:
Living Area 8'
Porch/Deck 8'
Garage (front facing) 19'
Minimum Side Yard Setbacks:
First Floor 4'
Upper Floors 4'
Corner Lot 8'
Porch/Deck 4'
Encroachments 2' max into req'd setback
Minimum Rear Yard Setbacks to Living Area 8'
Usable Private Rear Yard Space 400 sf min. flat area, minimum depth 8.0'
Required Parking 2 in garage, 1 guest
Guest parking A total of 35 on-street parking spaces will be provided for guests.
Notes:
1. Front yard setbacks are measured from the property line which is the back of the
sidewalk.
2. 60% of homes backing up to open space or public streets will have a minimum 10'
setback at the rear elevation.
3. Two-story homes can have "nested" third floor living space within the roofline
4. Side yard encroachments may include window bays, chimneys, furring or other
architectural projections. A minimum of 3' clear passage must be proved for
emergency responders.
5. For lots less than 5,000 square feet in size, mechanical equipment that generates
noise (such as swimming pool, spa and air conditioning equipment) on the property
shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of
50 dBA at any time.
ARCHITECTURE p a g e 2
STYLE GUIDELINES
Tassajara Highlands is designed to create a modern interpretation of European countryside styles,
including English, Spanish and French Country elevational styles as pictured and described by the
exterior elevations of Plan 1 through 4 in the Proposed Development Concept and Uses section..
The homes will complement architecture within neighboring subdivisions, but also capitalize on its
elevation to combine the style with outstanding view corridors. A connection of architectural style
with its hillside location and expansive views will allow the Tassajara Highlands homes to exhibit a
strong sense of place and permanence. The landscape design will anchor the homes to their hillside
location.
The following features have provided guidance for architectural style throughout Tassajara
Highlands:
• Architecture shall be simple in massing and form and provide visual interest.
• Architectural elements and materials shall be mixed and matched among elevation styles to
provide variety.
• Color palettes shall be bold and appropriate to the style
BUILDING HEIGHT
Single family homes shall be limited to thirty-five (35) feet in height. While not anticipated with the
current plan types, newly introduced plan types may contain third story rooms, so long as they are
tucked below the roof line in attic space. Roof dormers, lifts or gable end windows are allowed to
provide natural light and ventilation into these rooms.
MASSING
Each home or building shall be articulated so that the massing of the streetscape of a neighborhood
has variety and visual interest. This is applicable to all front elevations, as well as street facing side
elevations of corner lots. In addition, easily visible rear elevations such as those that back onto open
space or public streets shall be articulated. Solutions to achieve these goals include:
• Providing floor plans with a mixture of one and two story elements (when appropriate to the
style)
• Providing floor plans with offset wall planes
• Providing a variety of roof forms
Providing variety of porches, decks or other architectural elements
i
i
ARCHITECTURE p a g e 3
ARCHITECTURAL PLAN MIX
Homes and multi-family buildings shall be plotted in a manner that provides a variety of
floor/building plans and elevation styles along any given streetscape. Plotting two floor plans of the
same type on adjacent lots shall be avoided. At no time shall the same single family floor plan with
the same elevation style be plotted adjacent to each other.
The architecture will include four plan types, as described below. All plans have English, Spanish
and French Country elevation styles (as pictured and described in the following pages), and all plans
contain first floor suites to accommodate multi-generational living:
• Plan 1: Approximately 2,700sf, with up to 5 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2 car garage;
designed for use on corner lots;
• Plan 2: Approximately 2,800 sf, with up to 5 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2 car garage,
with an alternate Granny Suite option available on this home;
• Plan 3: Approximately 2,980sf,with up to 5 bedrooms, 3 baths,2 car garage;
• Plan 4: Approximately 3,100 sf,with up to 5 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2 car garage.
PLAN 1 Exterior Elevations
So
c~orw UN +ads s The
MOW FW*h
DecomoiNo c obW End n
lit A==tea,Ifim �
A A - ANISK
ARCHITECTURE p a g e 4
French Pounlry
molerid t end
Fluf Cwlcrole T�1r Rooflrq
Stucco Fk*h
Cemen"Now Siding/Shirrs
Shutters
Wood Posts
Siam veneer
Enhanced Sib
E x Stucco fWibh Trim
A N B - FRENCH UNTRY
Pat Roaft
UPC=Mfth
C.arrra Ok"Sk*W W*Vfel 4
stick Vww
&*Xx c d sirs '
lx3tmeo Mnuh low"
ATI N 'C' - ENGLISH
ARCHITECTURE page 5
PLAN 2 Exterior Elevations
tr
Concrete tow Rose T Tile
stuc=Nish
shutters
DACorafto GakAe&MI D efOR
&hanced Sms
1 x Stucco Finish Trim
E A A - SPAN I
no Come m is no
stucco tynoh
CMRtWif"Sil3W Shh"
Sl1Ut1tHA
NhaixJ PO9ti
Skm Veneer
Ontsanc-.ed sills
" * le Stucco fkt%h TAnv
L A O B - F N UNTRY
ARCHITECTURE _ page _ 6
Fk14 CAD0061.TO&ttovMp
Stucco FkVSh
camentmous Sk*W SttbVw
wick ,w,rrorv ��
&VORM dSw
x 3#k4co Fb id ftn
PLAN 3 Exterior Elevations
Con=W4 taw Pmf"Is T"
Stu=Ft,W
Strutters
Dec cwoH"Gomb End Deidl
Enho.----awls
I x stucco t, inm 1
NATION 'A' - SPANISH
ARCHITECTURE page 7
M Frw%ch Country :
Pktt+Ganc r eft TNe Rooflna
Stucco Finish
_ thu?tets
s� Wood Posts
stone vanes►
ant+ ed sfe
t x Stv=o Ftddd Tdm
M4
N -
Mof�srial Lepend�
Flat Crete Tree Rooting
Stucco Fo*h
Cemwdflotis Siding!
WsutterS
BAck veneer
Wtonced Sills
Ix Stucco Rnish Trim
Stone Veneer
LEVATION 'C' - ENGLISH
ARCHITECTURE page 8
PLAN 4 Exterior Elevations
!G`bncnet�e taw Prothe S t0c
8tucco£irifsh
3hLdtms
Docom"ye Gabb Ef DWOR ryr
Enhanced SOL
I.Sfa --rfw r Trim
9
I
EL VATI N "A" - SPANISH
maierkA�
►C=7 .
S+u000 ter,
W000 Posft&0000rattv+e RuNng
er*m3 r.cmd 31a
1 x SUK=o FWVsh TAm
ELEVATION B - FRENCH COUNTRY
ARCHITECTURE p a g e 9
w�ic,�w�ptsnd:
Fk"carders.ra.Qaordv
Stucco Fk*h _
Brick Verbea.
Erdimmsd Sift
)x Stucco FiMsM tnm -
Stone Veneer
VA - EN LISH
CORNER LOT CONDITIONS
The building materials on the front elevation should wrap to a logical termination point or
perpendicular change of plane on the side elevation. Building materials on homes or buildings
plotted on corner lots shall wrap to a logical termination point or perpendicular change on the rear
elevation. End lots on lanes or courts and lots adjacent to walking paths shall be considered corner
lots. For lots with enhanced elevations, refer to sheet SDRA for all lots that will have enhanced
elevations. Below is a representative example of Plan 3 enhanced right elevations and two rear
enhanced eleevations, for more specific details of the other 3 plan types, refer to the Architecture
section.
EJ C5
v°e
t
3A - SPANISH' - RIGHT AT ENHANCED LOTS ONLY
ARCHITECTURE page 10
i■ra anar..raua rr -
Yrllrrl•rrr��rr•�
Ilrr arranrw•- ''TVniri�inii7i�iuiii�i
nrrrr arr - -.rrra rnranaraw
r�lrrrr A' '��rrt�nlr�l��lrall
nrrrr.• •ara.an,rauw■
i■nrr �\�rrl�n�lr��
irrrwrrrrl�ow�
■ur�r■rr�lruo i
E
. • r ILOTI ONLY
I
�ana�
.�irr�nr.
irrrarrrna�
�r��rrYr>trrrn��
�uri>•.Irrnrrrrrru rnr�
�i■r�uwri■nrrrrrurrra rrr_
�nw:I�r�■rranrrurrY�rr■rrr_
.uw.a■ru■Iriur>•nrruouw rrlirr�_
���w-�uaiwaa ra■�r awr anrruwrua rr■irrrr arrrn�.
iirrrrarr�nw����rY1t��llrr ��r�nrrnrrurrr�i��u����rn►.
r�IrrYw irw��lrrl�rlrY1��� y ��rrnrrl�r�r�lrr�lrltYrrrrrn►.
nwanw•�rw-_ra anrruwr�� sir■I�,� .rrrnrrurria■iarnrrrrrra rr�
rnw�nvao��rnriru• vrarnr�rrrrnrrurrYrrrarn.
�w iar!+�rrYa ara rl■rL Yrrrarnrri�rrarnrrurrYa rrarl��.
€ urrrarrrrarr
i i i i
3C - EN RIGHT ENAHAN�a�urrrrrr `'�
r WLOTS
ii■iw�iiiiiiiiiiii�wi■
iii -.rte..rmra��■�■n■■.�iiu
_.in jai�w■■na " ■ruu■■ii■uiiiniiri
�Y��L:.I�rY����■ �► •r�in��r�ru.r\=i�=rr rwrinr
■iaini�u■iuniiii■■ii�:iriiiri�� err�rrrnrr�r�����■n■�r
■naaw■■n■■narwr■■u■■.-.i■■■■noi.w►.
rrrrrrarnr nr■...�...�rr.�rr..r. ■.1�■Y��_�l�n��■■�I��1���1
.�i�n�ar■■■a■ ■w■i..■nrrv■riariir�iw. ..���err.rarii nf.Y awn■
INN
REAR AT ENHANCED LOTS ONLY REAR AT ENHANCED LOTS ONLY
ARMITECTURE page 11
__._____.- __ uo•rrnrrrr
REAR YARDS
Homes shall be plotted in a manner that maximizes the rear usable portion of the lot for the
homeowner's private open space.
SIDE YARDS
Homes shall be plotted to maximize the visual separation between homes within the project.
• Care shall be given to minimize the aligning of windows between neighboring homes on side
elevations.Where possible, the visual sight lines between the homes should be broken.
• Trash receptacles are permitted to be located within the side yard setbacks (behind the
perpendicular fence) provided that they are screened from view by appropriate side yard fencing and
have access to the street through an appropriate gate and a minimum three (3� foot clear and level
path providing access to the rear yard is maintained at all times.
ENCROACHMENTS
Encroachments are not anticipated with the current plans, but future changes or newly introduced
plan types could have encroachments of up to two (2) feet into the front and rear yards and up of
one (1) foot into the 4' side yards for architectural projections that provide relief to the main
building massing form. For example, chimneys, bay windows, furred walls or columns, retaining
walls less than 4'in height, media centers,AC units, etc. may encroach 2' into the required setback of
a side yard, provided a 36" minimum clear and level area is maintained for access around the house
at all times. Below is representative example of the Plan 2 floor plan, for more details on all 4 plan
types,refer to the Architecture section.
4,0. 37•S1. 6.9..
0 �
m
OPT-COVERED PATIO/
III DECKABOVE.
I;
❑ ❑
E I!IX
-- ROOM
Q p II DINING
'$ I GARAGE I U
u
BA
I �
BEDROOM 4
4
1
ARCHITECTURE p a g e 12
OPTIONAL DECKS
Decks are planned to be used when the outdoor use area can be oriented towards a view, and away
from Tassajara Road. Decks shall be designed to reflect the appropriate scale and detail for the
architectural style they are associated with, and will be a minimum of eight (8) feet in depth so that
they are useable to the homeowners. Shown here are 2 representative examples of the Plan 1 floor
plan and Spanish style rear optional deck and Plan 3 floor plan and French Country rear optional
covered patio. For details of all 4 plan types with the 3 different styles of the showing the rear
options of the deck and/or covered patio,refer to the Architecture section.
PLAN 1
----------------------------
Q ' ' OPT.COVERED PATIO/
DECK ABOVE.
El
lox
LL
LX � ,
L
III
S
II
GARAGE
EDRM 4
=s.,a
REAR W/ OPTIONAL DECK
SA
p
ARCHITECTURE page 13
PLAN 3
r--I
DECRY ERE VEPATIC3/ �-
-
I. .
.A 4-'
DINING
GARAGE
II 13 _I
OPT.DEN
Ld
BA
REAR W/ OPTIONAL COVERED PATIO
I
-------------___- ------ -- ❑
B RM 4
ARCHITECTURE page 14
ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT
ELEVATIONS
All four sides of each home will exhibit similar architectural treatment. Where materials from one
elevation terminate on an adjacent elevation, consideration will be given to identify an appropriate
terminus for the material. There will be three elevational styles per plan.
RECESS AND SHADOW
Recesses and shadow lines will be created by the architecture of the home or building. Recessed
windows are encouraged when appropriate to the style.
ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS
Appropriately scaled architectural projections are encouraged in order to provide additional massing
forms.
ENTRY STATEMENT
Each home or living unit shall have an appropriately scaled entry element. These elements may
include:
• Decorative surrounds
• Porches
• Porticos
• Garden Walls and Gates
•Trellises
GARAGES AND DRIVEWAYS
• Garages and driveways with unique scoring details should be set back from the main facade of
the homes.
• Designs shall strive to reduce the overall visual mass of the garage on the front elevation.
• Garages should be de-emphasized by highlighting other elements of the home through
architectural form.
• The garage should be set back behind the main living space of the home, to the extent possible.
• Only sectional type garage doors are permitted.
ARCHITECTURE p a e 15
SIDE ELEVATIONS
Side elevations of homes or buildings should have architectural relief and detailing similar to the
front and rear elevation. This relief and detailing shall be appropriate in scale to the overall
architectural style of the home or building. It may be necessary to enhance visible side and rear
elevations where the view is prominent. Below are representative examples of the Plan 1 enhanced
side elevations for all three styles, which will be utilized where the side of the home is prominently
visible.
11 FE_I
� m
1A - 'SPANISH' - RIGHT AT ENHANCED LOTS ONLY
JOE
1 B - 'FRENCH COUNTRY' - RIGHT AT ENHANCED LOTS ONLY
ARCHITECTURE page 16
® II D
0 D
0 �t<
1 C - 'ENGLISH' - RIGHT AT ENHANCED LOTS ONLY
WINDOWS AND DOORS
Window grids, door styles and associated trim design will vary per elevation. Consistency of this
detailin g around all elevations shall be maintained.
• On all elevations, openings will be articulated with the appropriate head and sill details as a
minimum (4" x 1").Jamb details should be added when appropriate to the style.
• Shutters,if incorporated, shall be sized appropriately to the window or door they serve.
• Window grids, when appropriate to the architectural style, shall be used on all elevations
for both stories.
• Windows may be provided in various shapes and sizes, provided they are appropriate to
the architectural style of the home or building.
• Dormer windows shall be architecturally correct in scale, proportion and detail with the
selected architectural style.
ROOFS
A variety of roof forms and pitches shall be provided and will assist in meeting the massing and site
criteria for Tassajara Highlands. Roof pitches shall be appropriate to the architectural style of the
home or building.
• Mechanical equipment, other than solar equipment,is not permitted on the roof.
• Solar equipment shall be installed at the same slope as the pitch of the roof plane on which
it is located. Satellite dishes shall be located so that they are limited from street view as much
as possible. Central hook-ups shall be provided to a central location facing the appropriate
direction to prevent haphazard installations.
• Satellite dishes shall not be permitted on decks, balconies or railings.
• Roof penetrations for vents shall be on the rear side of roof ridges whenever possible. All
vents shall be painted to match the color of the roof.
• Overhangs shall be appropriate to the elevational style of the home or building.
ARCHITECTURE p age 17
MATERIALS AND COLORS
The exterior elevations shall receive a consistent use of materials and colors on all sides. Accent
materials such as brick and stone used on street facing elevations should be returned to a logical
point of termination at perpendicular change of plane on the adjacent elevations and at inside
corners. Natural or natural appearing materials shall be used as details to compliment the
architectural style, and are subject to architectural design review.
Elevation materials may, as appropriate to the architectural style,include:
• Stucco, board and batten siding, lap siding, or shingle siding (siding may be real wood or a
cementitious material).
• Stone or brick.
• Wood and high density foam trim elements.
Roofing material shall consist of:
• Composition shingle (high quality,40 year minimum shingle with shadow relied
• Concrete tile roofing
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Accessory and garden structures will comply with the City of Dublin Building Code in effect at the
time of construction.
ARCHITECTURE p a e 18
LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS
STREET TREES
Street trees will be planted behind the sidewalk to ensure fit between utilities.
• Tassajara Road: Pyrus calleryana Bradford'—Bradford Pear
• Creek View Loop/Court: Celtis sinensis—Chinese Hackberry
• Creek View Way: Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer'—Chanticleer Pear
� e
Bradford Pear
JUL 10 2014
DUBLIN PLANNING
LANDSCAPE p a g e 1
EXHIBIT B
s �
a�
w4.�
Chinese Hackberry
1
{
r
c
Chanticleer Pear
i
LANDSCAPE P a g e 3
FRONT YARD ACCENT TREES
• Acerpalmatum Blood
,good'— Japanese Maple
• Arbutus Marina'—Marina Strawberry Tree
• Cercis canadensis 'Forest Pansy'—Forest Pansy Redbud
• La
gerstroemia indica Muskogee'—Crape.Myrtle
• Magnolia grandiora 7 ittle Gem'—Dwarf Southern Magnolia
w
�t
Red Japanese Maple Marina Strawberry Tree
1 �
Forest Pansy Redbud
LANDSCAPE p a g e 4
f I
b
Y
Crape Myrtle Dwarf Southern Magnolia
OPEN SPACE TREES
• Platanus racemosa—California Sycamore
• Quercus agrifolia—Coast Live Oak Tree
• Schinus molle—California Pe er Tree
i
California Sycamore
LANDSCAPE page 5
s.
M
Coast Live Oak Tree
t
6:
California Pepper Tree
' LANDSCAPE p a g e 6
V
WALLS AND FENCING
COMMUNITY ENTRANCE WALL
This wall is used along Tassajara Road, and defines the entry to Tassajara Highlands. The wall is
low, 2.5' to Tin height,with the project name. The wall and column color is "Outerbanks"
SW#2064 by Sherwin Williams or equal; the wall and column concrete cap color will be natural grey.
N DAR
LD
rc .r
p
x
i7
wwn nis w,�rwaw
<iVA710N ry nrv*nun
ID'W W Mom
mew
SOUND WALL
The sound wall will be installed along the frontage of Tassajara Road. The wall is a Sierra Precast
stucco, "Marina" style,varying in height from 6' to 8',with columns located every 35' or at grade
changes. The wall and column color is "Outerbanks" SW#2064 by Sherwin Williams or equal, and
the wall and column concrete cap color will be natural grey.
LANDSCAPE p a g e 7
I
I •
GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE
The good neighbor fence is located between lots, and is constructed as a vertical board wood fence,
6' tall with cap and fascia board. 4"x 6"wood posts are located at a minimum of 8' on center.
2" X b"GAP
W-O"O G MAXIMUM
2"X4'NAILER
AT PRONT
1'X4'NAILHi
I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I AT BACK
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I'W FENCIN&
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I (BOARD ON BOARD
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 4"xr,"POST
I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I •a,Of'. Q
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I'X4'NAILER
I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I I i l l l i AT Eu�GK
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I XX4'NAILER
I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I AT FRONT
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
2..4.1
BOTTOM RAIL
2"XD"KIGKDOARD
CENTERED
1�
2" 12'X24• I I:1 r l l�I 11=
CONG.FTFs _
y�ALL MOOD TO BE CONSTRUCTION 1L lll— i I _ h
&RAVE RWA0OD.POSTS TO BE
PREWLIRE MATED DOUGLAS FIR II�TIT� L• T� –
12"
LATTICE FENCE
A lattice fence may be used at locations where the fence is visible from the public right-of way such
as parallel to the front of the home and along corner lots. This fence is similar to the good neighbor
fence with an 18" top panel of vertical lattice integrated into the overall 6' height.
2'X6"GAP
1'X2'FRAME-ALL AROUND
BOTH SIDES-MITER CORNERS
1i 1' 1tEDWOOD PRE-FAS SELECT
MIQa1-DENSITY PRIVACY 4
SQUARE LATTICE PANEL —
2"X 6"MID RAIL
2'X 4"NAILER
I'X 4'TRIM-TOP/BOTfOM
(BOARD 6"';;M I ARD) �
n
4'X6"P05T*V0r,
2'X 4"NAILER
I'X 4"TRIM-TOPIBOTTOM
2'X6"BOTTOM RAIL
in
1. P40M TO BE NO I DOUOLAO FIR r r =
ALL POSTS TO BB PILAW _ �• r =_
TREATED.ALL HAPIZWV p TO DE 1'_
&ALVANI�. CONCRETE
2. TO BE PLACED ON CORNER LOTS FOOTINIS I T
AND Y'*VISIBLE PROM STREET IO"
LANDSCAPE p a g e 8
42" ORNAMENTAL IRON GUARDRAIL
This guardrail is secured to the top of the retaining wall and provides safety for the public sidewalk
along Tassajara Road. The design is powder coated black ornamental iron with 5/8" square pickets
and 1"x2" square posts. The overall height is 42" from surface of sidewalk.
ix 2 \.Oaa 7'„5ULAR
G,_ 5 O„ GAL r' STEEL STR NGER -OP
I I
1 I I
_ 1x2 57EEL °OS`
I
5'b R 5 b \ 015 5-EEL
PIGKE` /2" OG.
v i I
'TYF'
kl I!2 055 -UBULAR
5TEEL 5T4R\GER to
BOT-OM
---- - -OP O'er PREGA5T ^ALL
+__ F5 SIDEwA_�
O I Id•
IM6EDDED INTO
RE-,A N\G 6A_'_
ry ;
as
1� *NOTE 'THE FRANGISGA\ f-•ENGE BY Tr+GMP50\
irl $ THOMP50\ °ENGE CO., \G (510-2�6-b55G
PA\T FACTORY PAIN- A\D r ELD TOUG•--UP.
1: GOAT PRIMER - i2; GOA-S 5EY1GLO55 -
5iAGti NO-L. T'LLE- YIELD/SMOOTH GRIND
Ate_ _01N15 ALL ME-A- TO 5E 1&0 T^IIGK
BASIN FENCING:
This fence is used along the boundary of the detention and bioretention basins, and is a tubular steel
fence. The overall height is 6'-0"'.
--- -- IX, V2 x 083 TJBULAR
STEEL 57RIN&ER
' I
I
I
( i
I112 5'!:EL °057
5i8 x 518 x 0,15 STEED
PIGKGT w 4 1%2"O.G.
TYP+
x !2 x .Oas Tum-AR
5TEE 5TRIN6FR a
130-TOM
fV
i
JI
ry� j GONG.FOO'ING -NOTE -THE F.AIRMON"FENCE BY T-IOMPSON
b THOMPWN FENCE CO., ING t"5110-2-76-8°
PAINT FACTORY PAINT ANp 71ELP TOUGH-'GP.
(1)C.OA-PRIMER -f2) COAT5 5EMI&L055-
/� BACK.NO-E- FILLET WELU%5MOOTH bR N7
6 ALL JOINTS ALL METAL 70 BE .1&0' THICK.
LANDSCAPE 9
OPEN SPACE VIEW FENCE—LOTS 6 THROUGH 26
This fence is used along the western edge of Tassajara Highlands, where the yards abut open space.
The design is a welded wire fence on 4x6 wood posts with wood rails without a bottom kicker
board. The overall height is 6'.
2'xb' GAP —
2"x4" 57RN&ER
4"x 6' PT POST
8'-0" O G
2"x4" tl0 GAJ&E! �
MARE N E:5-- - s�
G.ALVANSZEP
TFFFTTTM
I
2°x4'
5--RIN&ER --
- F N15H &RAPE -
2'Xlb" COY-
FOO-IN&
NO'E A_L WOOD TO BE GON5TRJ1--TION I I n
GRAPE REDWOOD. P05T5 TO BE I E
PRE-55URE TR-ATEP POU6�-A5 FIR C,OMPAGTED —
e6B&RAPE
OPEN SPACE VIEW FENCE—TYPICAL
This fence is used at the end of Private Drive D. The design is a welded wire fence on 4x6 wood
posts with wood rails with a bottom kicker board. The overall height is 6'.
_-- 2 xb" GAP --_--
i
� I
6..x4" STR NGER - ...
4"x 6" PT 1`05'
a 8'-0" or,
2"x4" !10 &.AJ&E; 0
WIRE NcS- -
&AL'VAN ZED
"X4'
- 5`RIN&ER .�
2..x 6„ P.T D.F
7—GIGKERBOAtD
F N15H &RAVE
I � I
2'x18" c'O.Vc I 1
FOO-IN& °I` I • o
ALL WOOD TO BE CON5TRJGTIL-^
GRADE REDWOOD. P05T5 TO BE I I
PRE55URE TREATED DOU&-A5 FIR GOMPAGTEP L -
SUBGR.ADE
LANDSCAPE 10
Re
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
i
s
s
h
e
e
t
w
i
t
h
1
1
”
x
1
7
”
t
a
b
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
SI
T
E
R
E
V
I
E
W
Re
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
i
s
s
h
e
e
t
w
i
t
h
1
1
”
x
1
7
”
t
a
b
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
GP
A
/
E
D
S
P
A
Re
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
i
s
s
h
e
e
t
w
i
t
h
1
1
”
x
1
7
”
t
a
b
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
ST
A
G
E
I
&
I
I
P
D
ST
A
G
E
I
/
S
T
A
G
E
I
I
P
L
A
N
N
E
D
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
SI&II.0
ST
A
G
E
I
&
I
I
P
L
A
N
N
E
D
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
D
E
S
I
G
N
G
U
I
D
E
L
I
N
E
S
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
S
I
T
E
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
:
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
L
o
t
W
i
d
t
h
4
5
.
0
’
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
L
o
t
S
i
z
e
3
,
6
7
0
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
w
i
d
t
h
@
c
u
l
-
d
e
-
s
a
c
5
0
’
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
L
o
t
C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
5
5
%
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
H
e
i
g
h
t
3
5
’
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
2
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
:
L
i
v
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
8
’
P
o
r
c
h
/
D
e
c
k
8
’
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
f
r
o
n
t
f
a
c
i
n
g
)
1
9
’
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
:
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
4
’
U
p
p
e
r
F
l
o
o
r
s
4
’
C
o
r
n
e
r
L
o
t
8
’
P
o
r
c
h
/
D
e
c
k
4
’
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
2
’
m
a
x
i
n
t
o
r
e
q
’
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
t
o
L
i
v
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
8
’
Us
a
b
l
e
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
S
p
a
c
e
4
0
0
s
f
m
i
n
.
f
l
a
t
a
r
e
a
,
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
d
e
p
t
h
8
.
0
’
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
2
i
n
g
a
r
a
g
e
,
1
g
u
e
s
t
Gu
e
s
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
A
t
o
t
a
l
o
f
3
5
o
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
f
o
r
g
u
e
s
t
s
.
No
t
e
s
:
1.
F
r
o
n
t
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
a
r
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
t
h
e
b
a
c
k
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
.
2.
6
0
%
o
f
h
o
m
e
s
b
a
c
k
i
n
g
u
p
t
o
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
1
0
’
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
3.
T
w
o
-
s
t
o
r
y
h
o
m
e
s
c
a
n
h
a
v
e
“
n
e
s
t
e
d
”
t
h
i
r
d
f
l
o
o
r
l
i
v
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
r
o
o
f
l
i
n
e
4.
S
i
d
e
y
a
r
d
e
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
b
a
y
s
,
c
h
i
m
n
e
y
s
,
f
u
r
r
i
n
g
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
A
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
3
’
c
l
e
a
r
passage must be proved for emergency responders.
5.
F
o
r
l
o
t
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
,
0
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
i
n
s
i
z
e
,
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
s
n
o
i
s
e
(
s
u
c
h
a
s
s
w
i
m
m
i
n
g
p
o
o
l
,
s
p
a
a
n
d
a
i
r
c
onditioning equipment) on the property shall be enclosed as
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
n
o
i
s
e
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
t
o
a
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
o
f
5
0
d
B
A
a
t
a
n
y
t
i
m
e
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
i
s
s
h
e
e
t
w
i
t
h
1
1
”
x
1
7
”
t
a
b
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
SI
T
E
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
R
E
V
I
E
W
Re
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
i
s
s
h
e
e
t
w
i
t
h
1
1
”
x
1
7
”
t
a
b
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
Re
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
i
s
s
h
e
e
t
w
i
t
h
1
1
”
x
1
7
”
t
a
b
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
07.04.2014
$&&21'(16(56+$//127(;&((''%$73523/,1(3(5&,7<25',1$1$&(
$//6(7%$&.63(53'
3529,'(&21'8,7$1')$&(3/$7()25)8785(6$7(//,7(',6+,167$//$7,21/2&$7,216+$//%($6&/26(726287+($67 :,7+287%(,1*217+()5217)$&$'(2)$1<+20(
$&
&
2
1
'
(
1
6
(
5
6
+
$
/
/
1
2
7
(
;
&
(
(
'
'
%
$
7
3
5
2
3
/
,
1
(
3(
5
&
,
7
<
2
5
'
,
1
$
1
$
&
(
$/
/
6
(
7
%
$
&
.
6
3
(
5
3
'
35
2
9
,
'
(
&
2
1
'
8
,
7
$
1
'
)
$
&
(
3
/
$
7
(
)
2
5
)
8
7
8
5
(
6
$
7
(
/
/
,
7
(
'
,
6
+
,1
6
7
$
/
/
$
7
,
2
1
/
2
&
$
7
,
2
1
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
$
6
&
/
2
6
(
7
2
6
2
8
7
+
(
$
6
7
:,
7
+
2
8
7
%
(
,
1
*
2
1
7
+
(
)
5
2
1
7
)
$
&
$
'
(
2
)
$
1
<
+
2
0
(
$&
&
2
1
'
(
1
6
(
5
6
+
$
/
/
1
2
7
(
;
&
(
(
'
'
%
$
7
3
5
2
3
/
,
1
(
3(
5
&
,
7
<
2
5
'
,
1
$
1
$
&
(
$/
/
6
(
7
%
$
&
.
6
3
(
5
3
'
35
2
9
,
'
(
&
2
1
'
8
,
7
$
1
'
)
$
&
(
3
/
$
7
(
)
2
5
)
8
7
8
5
(
6
$
7
(
/
/
,
7
(
'
,
6
+
,1
6
7
$
/
/
$
7
,
2
1
/
2
&
$
7
,
2
1
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
$
6
&
/
2
6
(
7
2
6
2
8
7
+
(
$
6
7
:,
7
+
2
8
7
%
(
,
1
*
2
1
7
+
(
)
5
2
1
7
)
$
&
$
'
(
2
)
$
1
<
+
2
0
(
$&
&
2
1
'
(
1
6
(
5
6
+
$
/
/
1
2
7
(
;
&
(
(
'
'
%
$
7
3
5
2
3
/
,
1
(
3(
5
&
,
7
<
2
5
'
,
1
$
1
$
&
(
$/
/
6
(
7
%
$
&
.
6
3
(
5
3
'
35
2
9
,
'
(
&
2
1
'
8
,
7
$
1
'
)
$
&
(
3
/
$
7
(
)
2
5
)
8
7
8
5
(
6
$
7
(
/
/
,
7
(
'
,
6
+
,1
6
7
$
/
/
$
7
,
2
1
/
2
&
$
7
,
2
1
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
$
6
&
/
2
6
(
7
2
6
2
8
7
+
(
$
6
7
:,
7
+
2
8
7
%
(
,
1
*
2
1
7
+
(
)
5
2
1
7
)
$
&
$
'
(
2
)
$
1
<
+
2
0
(
Re
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
i
s
s
h
e
e
t
w
i
t
h
1
1
”
x
1
7
”
t
a
b
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
VE
S
T
I
N
G
T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
M
A
P
RESOLUTION NO. 14 - XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT, AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8133 FOR THE
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS (FREDRICH/VARGAS) PROJECT
(PLPA-2012-00051)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Tim Lewis Communities and STL Company LLC, proposes to
create a development of 48 single-family detached homes on an 11.11 acre site known as the
Frederick and Vargas properties. The proposed development and applications are collectively
known as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the application includes a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment to change the land use designations from: Medium-High Density Residential and
Neighborhood Commercial and combining the existing Medium Density Residential to a
combination of Medium Density Residential (6.16 acres) and Open Space (3.06 acres) and 1.89
acres of associated road right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the application also includes Planned Development rezoning with a related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map 8133; and
WHEREAS, the Project also includes a CEQA Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site consists of two existing parcels, the approximately 7.93
gross acre Fredrich property located at 6960 Tassajara Road and the approximately 5 gross
acre Vargas property at 7020 Tassajara Road (APNs 986-0004-002-01 and 986-0004-002-03);
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. To comply with CEQA,
the City prepared an addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and two prior Mitigated Negative
Declarations for the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending City Council approval of the Site Development Review request and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 8133; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on July
22, 2014-land
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
ATTACHMENT 4
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider the CEQA addendum, all
said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent
judgment to evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Dublin, based on the findings in the attached Resolution, recommends that the City Council
adopt the Resolution attached as Exhibit A, which Resolution approves the Site Development
Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8133.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of July 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
C:INRPortbllEBMA1MK1712298168 1.DOCX
2
RESOLUTION NO. XX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8133
FOR THE TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS (FREDRICH/VARGAS) PROJECT
(PLPA-2012-00051)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Tim Lewis Communities and STL Company LLC, proposes to
create a development of 48 single-family detached homes on an 11.11 acre site known as the
Frederick and Vargas properties. The proposed development and applications are collectively known
as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the application includes a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
to change the land use designations from: Medium-High Density Residential and Neighborhood
Commercial and combining the existing Medium Density Residential to a combination of Medium
Density Residential (6.16 acres) and Open Space (3.06 acres) and 1.89 acres of associated road
right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the application also includes Planned Development rezoning with a related Stage
1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
8133; and
WHEREAS, the Project also includes a CEQA Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site consists of two existing parcels, the approximately 7.93 gross
acre Fredrich property located at 6960 Tassajara Road and the approximately 5 gross acre Vargas
property at 7020 Tassajara Road (APNs 986-0004-002-01 and 986-0004-002-03); and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. To comply with CEQA, the
City prepared an addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and two prior Mitigated Negative Declarations
for the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated July 22, 2014 was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning
Commission recommending City Council approval of the Project, including the Site Development
Review request and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8133; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted
Resolution 14-XX recommending that the City Council approve the CEQA addendum, Resolution 14-
XX recommending that the City Council approve the requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan amendments, Resolution 14-XX recommending that the City Council approve the
Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan consistent with the
requested land use amendments and Resolution 14-XX recommending that the City Council approve
the requested Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8133. All of the above
resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall during
normal business hours; and
Page 1 of 36
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 4
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the
Project, including Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8133; and
WHEREAS, on , 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project
at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. Following the public hearing, the
City Council approved Resolution XX-14 approving the proposed CEQA addendum, Resolution XX-14
approving amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and adopted
Ordinance XX-14 approving a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and 2
Development Plan for the Tassajara Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) Project. The above resolutions and
ordinance are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall during normal
business hours; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and considered the
addendum and prior CEQA documents, all said reports, recommendations, and testimony
hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby
makes the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Site Development Review
for a development of 48 single-family detached homes on an 11.11 acre site known as the Frederick
and Vargas properties located at 6960 and 7020 Tassajara Road:
Site Development Review:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance,
with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because: 1)
the project will be consistent with the architectural character and scale of development in
the area; 2) the project will provide a needed and attractive housing opportunity; 3) the
project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designations of Medium Density Residential and Open Space; and 4) the project complies
with the development standards established in the Planned Development ordinance for the
Project.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because. 1) the
project contributes to orderly, attractive, and harmonious site and structural development
compatible with the intended use, proposed subdivision, and the surrounding properties;
and 2) the project complies with the development regulations set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance where applicable and as adopted for PD PLPA 2012-00051 .
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties, and
the lot in which the project is proposed because: 1) the size and mass of the proposed
houses is consistent with other existing and approved residential development in the
surrounding area; 2) the project will contribute to housing opportunities as a complement to
the surrounding neighborhoods; and 3) the project will serve the current buyer profile and
market segment anticipated for this area.
Page 2 of 36
D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because:
1) the Project development envelope is tailored to protect the creek areas and avoids
steeper slopes, which are designated for open space; 2) the Project will implement all
applicable prior adopted mitigation measures; and 3) the project site is fully served by
public services and existing roadways.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) the Project
is required to comply with all previously adopted mitigation measures designed to ensure
slope stability; 2) grading on the site will ensure that the site drains away from any
structures and complies with the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements; 3)
most of the steeper areas of the site are in designated open space; and 4) retaining walls
will be constructed as required to support grade differentials between building envelopes,
and setback or right-of-way areas.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site
layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly
uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is
harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other developments in the vicinity
because: 1) the Project provides a high degree of design and landscaping to complement
existing uses in the area.; 2) the structures reflect the architectural styles and development
standards in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for residential buildings in the area; 3) the
materials proposed will be consistent with the requirements of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan; and 4) the color and materials proposed will be coordinated among the structures on
site.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of
plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure
visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public because: 1)
generous landscaping is proposed to buffer the proposed noise barrier, providing an
attractive view from Tassajara Road; and 2) landscaping in common areas is coordinated
through a series of sidewalks; 3) common area open space has been provided in the form
of two internal private open space areas; and 4) the project will conform to the
requirements of the Stage 2 Development Plan and the Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclist,
pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) the project site provides opportunities for
pedestrian and bicycle circulation; 2) the project will provide a public path along the
westerly and southerly open space areas of the site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby makes the
following findings and determinations regarding Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8133:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8133
A. The proposed Vesting Tentative tract Map 8133 is consistent with the intent of applicable
subdivision regulations and related ordinances for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
B. The design and improvements of the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8133 are
consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, as they
Page 3 of 36
relate to the subject property in that it is a subdivision for implementation consistent with
adjacent residential neighborhoods designated for this type of development.
C. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8133 is consistent with the Planned Development
zoning approved for Project through the Planned Development zoning adopted for this project
and therefore consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
D. The properties created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8133 will have adequate
access to major constructed or planned improvements as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan.
E. Project design, architecture, and concept have been integrated with topography of the project
site created by the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8133 to incorporate water quality measures
and minimize overgrading and extensive use of retaining walls. Therefore, the proposed
subdivision is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed.
F. The Mitigation Measures adopted with the program EIR for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and with the prior MNDs would be applicable as appropriate for addressing or mitigating any
potential environmental impacts of the Project.
G. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8133 will not result in environmental damage or
substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns subject to
Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval.
H. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,
or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City Engineer has
reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting easements of this nature.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council hereby approves the Site
Development Review for a development of 48 single-family detached homes on an 11.11 acre site
known as the Fredrich and Vargas properties located at 6960 and 7020 Tassajara Road., as shown
on plans prepared by KTGY, Inc., P/A Design Resources, Inc., Ripley Design Group dated received
July 10, 2014 and subject to the conditions included below.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council hereby approves Vesting Tentative
Map 8133 prepared by KTGY, Inc., P/A Design Resources, Inc., Ripley Design Group dated received
July 10, 2014 and subject to the conditions included below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review
and approval The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for
monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. 113L.1 Planning, [Bl Building, [POI Police,
[PW1 Public Works [P&CS1 Parks & Community Services, [ADMI Administration/City Attorney,
[FINI Finance, F1 Alameda County Fire Department, [DSRI Dublin San Ramon Services District,
[C01 Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z71 Zone 7.
Page 4 of 36
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Prior to: Source
PLANNING GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Approval. This Site Development Review approval PL Ongoing Planning
is for the Tassajara Highlands (PLPA-2012-00051).
This approval shall be as generally depicted and
indicated on the project plans prepared by KTGY,
Inc., P/A Design Resources, Inc., Ripley Design
Group dated received July 10, 2014, on file in the
Community Development Department, and other
plans, text, and diagrams relating to this Site
Development Review, and as specified as the
following Conditions of Approval for this project.
This approval is subject to adopting the CEQA
addendum, and companion General Plan and
Specific Plan Amendments and related Planned
Development Zoning.
2. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall PL One Year DMC
commence within one (1) year of Site Development After Effective 8.96.020.
Review Permit approval or the Permit shall lapse Date D
and become null and void. If there is a dispute as to
whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a
noticed public hearing to determine the matter.
Such a determination may be processed
concurrently with revocation proceedings in
appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a
new application must be made and processed
according to the requirements of this Ordinance.
3. Time Extension. The original approving decision- PL Prior to DMC
maker may, upon the Applicant's written request for Expiration 8.96.020.
an extension of approval prior to expiration, upon Date E
the determination that all Conditions of Approval
remain adequate and all applicable findings of
approval will continue to be met, grant an extension
of the approval for a period not to exceed six (6)
months. All time extension requests shall be
noticed and a public hearing shall be held before
the original hearing body.
4. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall PL Ongoing DMC
operate this use in compliance with the Conditions 8.96.020.
of Approval of this Site Development Review F
Permit, the approved plans and the regulations
established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation
Page 5 of 36
of the terms or conditions specified may be subject
to enforcement action.
5. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development PL Ongoing DMC
Review approval shall be revocable for cause in 8.96.020.1
accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or
conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation.
6. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Building Standard
Applicant/ Developer shall comply with applicable Permit
City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin Public Issuance
Works Department, Dublin Building Department,
Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood
Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley
Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and
Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services
District and the California Department of Health
Services requirements and standard conditions.
Prior to issuance of building permits or the
installation of any improvements related to this
project, the Developer shall supply written
statements from each such agency or department
to the Planning Department, indicating that all
applicable conditions required have been or will be
met.
7. Required Permits. Developer shall obtain all PW Building Standard
permits required by other agencies including, but Permit
not limited to Alameda County Flood Control and Issuance
Water Conservation District Zone 7, California
Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of
Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the
Public Works Department.
8. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable Various Building Various
fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, Permit
including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building Issuance
fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San
Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees,
Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees,
Fire Facilities Impact fees, Alameda County Flood
and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage
and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that
may be adopted and applicable.
9. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, ADM Ongoing Administra
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and tion/City
its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, Attorney
action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or
Page 6 of 36
its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of
Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
Planning Commission, City Council, Community
Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any
other department, committee, or agency of the City
to the extent such actions are brought within the
time period required by Government Code Section
66499.37 or other applicable law; provided,
however, that the Developer's duty to so defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the
City's promptly notifying the Developer of any said
claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full
cooperation in the defense of such actions or
proceedings.
10. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there PW Ongoing Public
needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Works
Approval, the Director of Community Development
and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify
the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the
Developer without going to a public hearing. The
Director of Community Development and the City
Engineer also have the authority to make minor
modifications to these conditions without going to a
public hearing in order for the Developer to fulfill
needed improvements or mitigations resulting from
impacts to this project.
11. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be PL Ongoing Planning
responsible for clean-up & disposal of project
related trash to maintain a safe, clean and litter-free
site.
12. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this PL Ongoing DMC
Site Development Review approval may be 8.104.100
considered by the Community Development
Director if the modifications or changes proposed
comply with Section 8.104.100 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
13. Lighting. Lighting is required over exterior PL, PW Building Municipal
entrances/doors. Exterior lighting used after daylight Permit Code
hours shall be adequate to provide for security Issuance
needs.
PLANNING — PROJECT SPECIFIC
14. Public Art Contribution. Developer shall fulfill the PL Prior to first Project
Public Art Contribution through the provision of in- occupancy Specific
lieu fees. Prior to the recordation of the final map for
the project, Developer shall obtain the total building
valuation of the project from the Building Official,
and the value of the applicant's required public art
Page 7 of 36
project shall be determined by the Community
Development Director .
15. Inclusionary Housing: This project is subject to the PL Recordation Project
City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter of the first specific
8.68 of the Municipal Code). Under the terms of the final map
regulations, the Developer has a 6 unit affordable
housing obligation, which may be satisfied by
several means. Developer proposed an "alternative
method of compliance" under Section 8.68.040.A to
satisfy its 6 unit affordable housing obligation, which
is subject to City Council approval. In particular, the
Developer has proposed to pay a fee of $600,000 in
lieu of construction of the 6 affordable housing
units. The Developer shall make the payment 60
days after the recordation of the final map. If the
Developer fails to make the payment when due, the
City may withhold further approvals and
authorizations for the Project, and may elect to
revoke the approval of the alternative method of
compliance and apply the Regulation's standard
requirements.
16. Comprehensive Biological Resources PL Issuance of Project
Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading grading specific
permits, the Applicant shall have a qualified biologist permit
prepare a Comprehensive Biological Resources
Management Plan to compile the various biological
mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA
documents in a logical manner. Completion of this
Plan will ensure that all previous applicable measures
are logically complied to eliminate overlap and
duplication and appropriately monitored at the
appropriate stage of the proposed project. Therefore,
no new or more severe impacts with respect to
candidate, sensitive or special-status species would
occur than have been analyzed in the three previous
CEQA documents. Comprehensive Biological
Management Plan shall also address impacts and
updates to previous mitigation measures addressing
riparian habitat and wetlands. No new or more
severe impacts would occur than have been
previously analyzed with respect to this topic.
17. Heritage Tree Ordinance. Prior to the issuance of PL Issuance of Project
Grading permits, the Applicant shall apply for a grading Specific
Heritage Tree Removal Permit, if needed, in permit
accordance with the plans provided herein and in
accordance with the requirements of the Heritage
Tree Ordinance.
18. Street Lights. Street lights selected for this PL In conjunction Project
subdivison shall have the ability to accept cut-off with approval Specific
Page 8 of 36
shielding to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. of
improvement
plans
LANDSCAPING
19. Final Landscape Construction Documents. The PL Issuance of Standard
final planting and irrigation design shall: building
permits
a. Utilize plant material that will be capable of
healthy growth within the given range of soil
and climate.
b. Provide landscape screening that is of a
height and density so that it provides a
positive visual impact within three years from
the time of planting.
c. Provide that 75% of the proposed trees on
the site are a minimum of 15 gallons in size,
and at least 50% of the proposed shrubs on
the site are a minimum of 5 gallons in size.
d. Provide concrete curbing at the edges of all
planters and paving surfaces where
applicable.
Final landscape construction documents shall:
a. Provide specific landscape and irrigation
plans for non-typical and corner lots. This
requirement includes any lot that varies more
than five feet in width from the typical plan.
b. Specify that all cut and fill slopes graded and
not constructed by September 1, of any
given year, are hydroseeded with perennial
or native grasses and flowers, and that
stockpiles of loose soil existing on that date
are hydroseeded in a similar manner.
c. Specify that the area under the drip line of all
existing oaks, walnuts, etc., which are to be
saved are fenced during construction and
grading operations and no activity is
permitted under them that will cause soil
compaction or damage to the tree, if
applicable.
d. Include a warranty from the owners and/or
contractors to warrant all trees, shrubs and
ground cover and the irrigation system for
one year from the date of project acceptance
by the City.
20. Maintenance Agreement. A permanent PL Issuance of Standard
maintenance agreement on all common area the building
Page 9 of 36
landscaping will be required from the owner insuring permit
re ular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement.
21. Tree Preservation. Tree preservation techniques, PL Issuance of Standard
and guarantees, if applicable, shall be reviewed and the building
approved by the Dublin Planning Division prior to permit
the issuance of the building permit.
22. Street Trees and Accent Trees. Street trees shall PL Issuance of Standard
be spaced between 30 and 50 feet on center or the building
approximately one per typical lot. Corner lots shall permit
provide a minimum of two trees and a maximum of
three street trees per lot. Generally, each lot will
rovide one accent tree, space permitting.
23. Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations. The PL Issuance of Standard
Applicant shall meet all requirements of the City of the building
Dublin's Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations, permit
Section 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
24. Bio-Retention Areas. The designed bio-retention PL Issuance of Standard
areas shall be enhanced to create an open space the building
landscape that is landscape attractive, conserves permit
water, and requires minimal maintenance.
25. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet the PL Issuance of Standard
following clearances: the building
a. 6' from the face of building walls or roof eaves permit
b. 7' from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary
sewers and/or gas lines
C. 5' from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes,
water, telephone and/or electrical mains
d. 15' from stop signs, street or curb sign returns
e. 20' from either side of a streetlight
26. Irrigation System Warranty. The Applicant shall PL Issuance of Standard
warranty the irrigation system and planting for a the building
period of one year from the date of installation. The permit
Applicant shall submit for the Dublin Community
Development Department approval, a landscape
maintenance plan for the Common Area landscape
including a reasonable estimate of expenses for the
first five years.
27. Walls, Fences and Mailboxes. Applicant shall PL Issuance of Standard
work with staff to prepare a final wall, fencing and the building
mailbox plan that is consistent with Dublin Municipal permit
Code and the design character of the architecture.
The design of the mailbox station shall be upgraded
to provide an enclosure or housing for the gang
mailboxes so that they are integrated into the
structure. Mailbox locations shall be integrated
within the landscape and shall comply with USPS
requirements.
28. Sustainable Landscape Practices. The PL Issuance of Standard
landscape design shall demonstrate compliance the building
Page 10 of 36
with sustainable landscape practices as detailed in permit
the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines by earning
a minimum of 60 points or more on the Bay-Friendly
scorecard, meeting 9 of the 9 required practices
and specifying that 75% of the non-turf planting only
requires occasional, little or no shearing or summer
water once established. Final selection and
placement of trees, shrubs and ground cover plants
shall ensure compliance with this requirement.
Herbaceous plants shall be used along walks to
reduce maintenance and the visibility of the sheared
branches of woody ground cover plants. Planters
for medium sized trees shall be a minimum of six
feet wide. Small trees or shrubs shall be selected
for planting areas less than six feet wide.
29. Copies of Approved Plans. The Applicant shall PL Construction Standard
provide the City with one full size copy, one reduced
(1/2 sized) copy and one electronic copy of the
approved landscape plans prior to construction.
CIVIL CONDITIONS
30. Plans Coordination. Civil Improvement Plans, PL Preparation of Standard
Joint Trench Plans, Street Lighting Plans and final grading,
Landscape Improvement Plans shall be submitted planting and
on the same size sheet and plotted at the same utility plans
drawing scale for consistency, improved legibility
and interdisciplinary coordination.
31 . Utility Placement and Coordination: Utilities shall PL Preparation of Standard
be coordinated with proposed tree locations to final grading,
eliminate conflicts between trees and utilities. Submit planting and
typical utility plans for each house type to serve as a utility plans
guide during the preparation of final grading, planting
and utility plans. Utilities may have to be relocated in
order to provide the required separation between the
trees and utilities. The applicant shall submit a final
tree/utility coordination plan as part of the construction
document review process to demonstrate that this
condition has been satisfied.
BUILDING
32. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project B Through Standard
construction shall conform to all building codes and Completion
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit.
33. Retaining Walls. All retaining walls over 30 inches B Through Standard
in height and in a walkway shall be provided with Completion
guardrails. All retaining walls over 24 inches with a
surcharge or 36 inches without a surcharge shall
obtain permits and inspections from the Building &
Safet Division.
34. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is B Occupancy of Standard
Page 11 of 36
requested to occur in phases, then all physical any affected
improvements within each phase shall be required building
to be completed prior to occupancy of any buildings
within that phase except for items specifically
excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan,
or minor handwork items, approved by the
Department of Community Development. The
Phased Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to the
Directors of Community Development and Public
Works for review and approval a minimum of 45
days prior to the request for occupancy of any
building covered by said Phased Occupancy Plan.
Any phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular
access to all parcels in each phase, and shall
substantially conform to the intent and purpose of
the subdivision approval. No individual building
shall be occupied until the adjoining area is finished,
safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable
expected services and amenities, and separated
from remaining additional construction activity.
Subject to approval of the Director of Community
Development, the completion of landscaping may
be deferred due to inclement weather with the
posting of a bond for the value of the deferred
landscaping and associated improvements.
35. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Issuance of Standard
Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of Building
construction plans to the Building & Safety Division Permits
for plan check. Each set of plans shall have
attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of
Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how
all Conditions of Approval will or have been
complied with. Construction plans will not be
accepted without the annotated resolutions attached
to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be
responsible for obtaining the approvals of all
participation non-City agencies prior to the issuance
of building permits.
36. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall B Issuance of Standard
be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) building
accurately drawn (depicting all existing and permits
proposed conditions on site), and prepared and
signed by a California licensed Architect or
Engineer. All structural calculations shall be
prepared and signed by a California licensed
Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape
plan and details shall be consistent with each other.
37. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and B, PL Occupancy of Standard
ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view Unit
Page 12 of 36
with materials compatible to the main building and
shall not be roof mounted. Units shall be
permanently installed on concrete pads or other
non-movable materials approved by the Chief
Building Official and Director of Community
Development. Air conditioning units shall be
located such that each dwelling unit has one side
yard with an unobstructed width of not less than 36
inches. Air conditioning units shall be located in
accordance with the PD text. Air conditioning units
shall comply with Section 8.36.060,C,3 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
38. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction B Through Standard
fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all Completion
work under construction.
39. Addressing B Standard
a) Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin's
address grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 Prior to
scale). Highlight all exterior door openings release of
on plans (front, rear, garage, etc.). The site addresses
plan shall include a single large format page
showing the entire project and individual
sheets for each neighborhood. 3 copies on
full size sheets and 5 copies reduced sheets.
b) Provide plan for display of addresses. The
Building Official shall approve plan prior to Prior to
issuance of the first building permit. (Prior to permitting
permitting)
c) Addresses will be required on the front of the
dwellings. Addresses are also required near Prior to
the garage door opening if the opening is not permitting
on the same side of the dwelling as the front
door.
d) Address signage shall be provided as per the Occupancy
Dublin Residential Security Code. of any Unit
e) Exterior address numbers shall be backlight
and be posted in such a way that they may Occupancy
be seen from the street. of any Unit
f) Driveways servicing more than one (1)
individual dwelling unit shall have a minimum Prior to
of 4 inch high identification numbers, noting permit
the range of unit numbers placed at the issuance,
entrance to each driveway at a height and through
between 36 and 42 inches above grade. The completion
light source shall be provided with an
uninterruptible AC power source or controlled
only by photoelectric device.
Page 13 of 36
40. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record B Scheduling Standard
shall be retained to provide observation services for the final
all components of the lateral and vertical design of frame
the building, including nailing, hold-downs, straps, inspection
shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of
building. A written report shall be submitted to the
City Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame
inspection.
41. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils B Permit Standard
report shall review and approve the foundation issuance
design. A letter shall be submitted to the Building
Division on the approval.
42. Green Building B Standard
Green Building measures as detailed in the SDR Through
package may be adjusted prior to master plan Completion
check application submittal with prior approval from
the City's Green Building Official provided that the
design of the project complies with the City of
Dublin's Green Building Ordinance and State Law
as applicable. In addition, all changes shall be
reflected in the Master Plans. (Through
Completion)
The Green Building checklist shall be included in Prior to first
the master plans. The checklist shall detail what permit
Green Points are being obtained and where the
information is found within the master plans. (Prior
to first permit).
Prior to each unit final, the project shall submit a Through
completed checklist with appropriate verification that Completion
all Green Points required by 7.94 of the Dublin
Municipal Code have been incorporated. (Through
Completion)
Homeowner Manual — if Applicant takes advantage Project
of this point the Manual shall be submitted to the
Green Building Official for review or a third party
reviewer with the results submitted to the City.
(Project)
Landscape plans shall be submitted to the Green
Building Official for review. (Prior to approval of the Prior to
landscape plans by the City of Dublin) approval of
the
Developer may choose self-certification or landscape
Page 14 of 36
certification by a third party as permitted by the plans by the
Dublin Municipal Code. Applicant shall inform the City of Dublin
Green Building Official of method of certification
prior to release of the first permit in each subdivision
/ nei hborhood.
43. Electronic File: The applicant/developer shall B Issuance of Standard
submit all building drawings and specifications for the final
this project in an electronic format to the satisfaction occupancy
of the Building Official prior to the issuance of
building permits. Additionally, all revisions made to
the building plans during the project shall be
incorporated into an "As Built" electronic file and
submitted prior to the issuance of the final
occupancy.
44. Construction trailer: Due to size and nature of the B TUP required Standard
development, the applicant/developer, shall provide prior to
a construction trailer with all hook ups for use by placement of
City Inspection personnel during the time of trailer
construction as determined necessary by the
Building Official. A Temporary Use Permit is
required prior to placement of the construction
trailer. In the event that the City has their own
construction trailer, the applicant/developer shall
provide a site with appropriate hook ups in close
proximity to the project site to accommodate this
trailer. The applicant/developer shall cause the
trailer to be moved from its current location at the
time necessary as determined by the Building
Official at the Applicant/Developer's expense.
45. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall B 30 days after Standard
provide City with 2 reduced (1/2 size) copies of the permit and
City of Dublin stamped approved plan. each revision
issuance
46. Solar Zone — CA Energy Code B In Standard
Show the location of the Solar Zone on the site conjunction
plan. Detail the orientation of the Solar Zone. This with Master
information shall be shown in the master plan check Plan check,
on the overall site plan, the individual roof plans and prior to
the plot plans. This condition of approval will be issuance of
waived if the project meets the exceptions provided Building
in the CA Energy Code. Permits
47. Wildfire Management. Provide in the master B Prior to Standard
drawing set, a sheet detailing which lots are issuance of
adjacent to open space and subject to the Wildfire Building
Management provisions of the code. Permits
48. Household Waste Materials. Removal of existing B Prior to Project
household waste materials on the site shall be issuance of Specific
monitored by a qualified professional and that Grading
normal and customary testing be performed for lead Permits and
Page 15 of 36
based paint and asbestos building materials prior to issuance of
demolition of existing on-site buildings. Compliance demolition
with this condition shall be demonstrated to the permit
Building Official prior to obtaining a demolition
permit.
FIRE
49. New Fire Residential Sprinkler System F Prior to CA
Requirements. In accordance with The Dublin Fire issuance of Building /
Code, fire sprinklers shall be installed in all Building Residential
buildings. The system shall be in accordance with Permits Code
the NFPA 13D, the CA Fire Code and CA Building /
Residential Code.
50. Fire apparatus. Roadways shall have a minimum F In CA
unobstructed width of 20 feet and an unobstructed conjunction Building /
vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. with Site Residential
Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted with Improvement Code
signs on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide Drawings
shall be posted with signs both sides of the street as
follows: "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC
22500.1".
1. Fire apparatus roadways must extend to
within 150 ft. of the most remote first floor
exterior wall of any building.
2. The maximum grade for a fire apparatus
roadway is 12%.
3. Fire apparatus roadways in excess of 150
feet in length must make provisions for
approved apparatus turnarounds.
51. Gate Approvals. Fencing and gates that cross F Prior to CA
pedestrian access and exit paths, as well as vehicle issuance of Building /
entrance and exit roads and Emergency Vehicle Building Residential
Access ways, need to be approved for fire Permits Code
department access and egress as well as exiting
provisions where such is applicable. Plans need to
be submitted that clearly show the fencing and
gates and details of such. This should be clearly
incorporated as part of the site plan with details
provided as necessary.
52. Hydrants & Fire Flows. Show the location of any F Prior to CA
on-site fire hydrants and any fire hydrants that are issuance of Building /
along the property frontage as well as the closest Building Residential
hydrants to each side of the property that are Permits Code
located along the access roads that serves this
property. Provide a letter from the water company
indicating what the available fire flow is to this
property.
DSRSD
53. 1 Complete improvement plans shall be submitted tc DSRSD Issuance of Standard
Page 16 of 36
DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the any building
Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the permit
DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and
Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and
Wastewater Facilities", all applicable DSRSD
Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.
54. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient DSRSD Issuance of Standard
capacity to accommodate future flow demands in any building
addition to each development project's demand. permit
Layout and sizing of mains shall be in conformance
with DSRSD utility master planning.
55. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity DSRSD Issuance of Standard
flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. any building
Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be permit
allowed under extreme circumstances following a
case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any
pumping station will require specific review and
approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports,
design criteria, and final plans and specifications.
The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment
of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well
as other conditions within a separate agreement
with the applicant for any project that requires a
pumping station.
56. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for DSRSD Issuance of Standard
Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be any building
designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid permit
dead end sections in accordance with requirements
of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound
en in ering practice.
57. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines DSRSD Issuance of Standard
to be located in public streets rather than in off- any building
street locations to the fullest extent possible. If permit
unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements
must be established over the alignment of each
public sewer or water line in an off-street or private
street location to provide access for future
maintenance and/or replacement.
58. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a DSRSD Issuance of Standard
site development permit, the locations and widths of any building
all proposed easement dedications for water and permit
sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by
DSRSD.
59. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall DSRSD Issuance of Standard
be by separate instrument irrevocably offered to any building
DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. permit
60. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the DSRSD Issuance of Standard
Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by any building
DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and permit
Page 17 of 36
restrictions.
61. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit DSRSD Issuance of Standard
or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon any building
Services District, whichever comes first, all utility permit
connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan
checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and
fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit
shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the
rates and schedules established in the DSRSD
Code.
62. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit DSRSD Issuance of Standard
or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon any building
Services District, whichever comes first, all permit
improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be
signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing
of improvement plans shall contain a signature
block for the District Engineer indicating approval of
the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to
approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall
pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an
engineer's estimate of construction costs for the
sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a
one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive
general liability insurance policy in the amounts and
forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant
shall allow at least 15 working days for final
improvement drawing review by DSRSD before
signature by the District Engineer.
63. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be DSRSD Issuance of Standard
permitted unless the proper utility construction any building
permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit
permit will only be issued after all of the items in
Condition No. 9 have been satisfied.
64. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of DSRSD Issuance of Standard
Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of any building
DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the permit
same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting
from the construction and completion of the project.
65. Improvement plans shall include recycled water DSRSD Issuance of Standard
improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for any building
landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water permit
mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD
Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the
requirements therein.
66. DSRSD has no objections to this proposed alternate DSRSD Issuance of Project
site plan should such a site plan be permissible with any building Specific
the revised Tassajara Road right of way and under permit
Dublin Zoning regulations.
Page 18 of 36
PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS
67. Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment PW First final map Public
District. The Developer shall petition to have the Works
project area annexed into the Citywide Lighting
Maintenance Assessment District and shall provide
any exhibits required for the annexation. In
addition, Developer shall pay all administrative
costs associated with processing the annexation.
68. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements. PW Final map Public
Ownership and maintenance of street right-of-ways, and on going Works
common area parcels and open space areas and
improvements shall be by the City of Dublin and the
Tassajara Highlands Homeowner's Association as
shown on the "Ownership and Maintenance Plan"
Stage I & II PD Exhibit, Sheet SI&II.5 prepared by
P/A Design Resources, dated July 4, 2014, except
as modified by these Conditions of Approval.
69. Landscape Features within Public Right of Way. PW Final Map Standard
The Developer shall enter into an "Agreement for
Long Term Encroachments" with the City for
maintaining landscape features and other
improvements within the public right-of-way and
City-owned parcels including frontage & median
landscaping, decorative pavements, decorative
features (i.e. walls, monuments, fences, etc.), storm
drain facilities, stormwater treatment measures and
public trails as generally shown on Site
Development Review exhibits. The Agreement shall
identify the ownership of the special features and
maintenance responsibilities. The Developer will be
responsible for maintaining all decorative
pavements including restoration required as the
result of utility repairs.
70. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions PW First Final Public
(CC&Rs). A Homeowners Association(s) shall be Map; modify Works
formed by recordation of a declaration of with
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to govern successive
use and maintenance of the landscape, decorative Final Maps
pavement and other features within the public right-
of-way contained in the Agreement for Long Term
Encroachments; all private road improvements; all
open space and common area landscaping; all
stormwater treatment measures; and all trail
improvements. Said declaration shall set forth the
Association name, bylaws, rules and regulations.
The CC&Rs shall also contain a provision that
prohibits the amendment of those provisions of the
CC&Rs requested by City without the City's
approval. The CC&Rs shall ensure that there is
Page 19 of 36
adequate provision for the maintenance, in good
repair and on a regular basis, of the private roads,
landscaping & irrigation, stormwater treatment
measures, public trail, decorative pavements,
fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs and other
related improvements. The Developer shall submit a
copy of the CC&R document to the City for review
and approval relative to these conditions of
approval.
71. Phased Improvements. Right-of-way dedication PW First Final Public
and installation of public and private improvements Map Works
may be done in phases as indicated on the
Tentative Map and Site Development Review,
subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer. With each phased Final Map, the City
Engineer shall identify all improvements necessary
to serve and access the phased lots created,
including stormwater treatment measures required
to meet the provisions of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit
(MRP). All rights-of-way and improvements,
including utilities and traffic signal installation and
modifications, identified by the City Engineer for
construction within the boundaries of each phase of
the development shall be required with the Final
Map for that phase. In addition, the City Engineer
may require the Developer to perform off-site
grading in order to conform site grading to the
adjacent grade outside of the phase proposed for
development.
72. Moller Creek Culvert. The Moller Creek culvert PW Prior to filing Public
improvements, to be constructed by others as of first Final Works
shown on Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102, shall Map that
be substantially completed to the satisfaction of the creates Lots
City Engineer prior to filing the first Final Map that 25-28 and Lot
creates Lots 25-28 and Lot 39. The Developer may 39.
alternatively submit phasing plans demonstrating
how these units may be constructed in such a way
as to not impede the progress of the Moller Creek
culvert construction or compromise public safety.
The phasing plans shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to filing the
first Final Map that creates Lots 25-28 and Lot 39.
73. Tassajara Road. The Developer shall dedicate PW First Final Public
right-of-way along the project's Tassajara Road Map Works
frontage as shown on the Tentative Map such that
the typical half-street right-of-way width of Tassajara
Road is sixty four feet (64'), in general conformance
with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the
Page 20 of 36
Precise Plan adopted for Tassajara Road. Slight
variations in the typical half street right-of-way width
will be permitted to allow for variations in the fence
line fronting Tassajara Road as shown on the
Tentative Map and as approved by the City
Engineer. All right-of-way for Tassajara Road
shown on the Tentative Map shall be dedicated with
the first Final Map.
74, Tassajara Road. If necessary, the Developer shall PW First Final Public
dedicate additional right-of-way along the Map Works
Tassarjara Road frontage of the portion of Parcel E
identified on the Tentative Map as "To Be Acquired
from City of Dublin Through Exchange Agreement"
to facilitate widening of the southbound lanes of
Tassajara Road by the developer of the adjacent
Wallis Ranch development.
75. Tassajara Road. A portion of Parcel E, as PW First Final Public
identified on the Tentative Map, is currently roadway Map Works
right-of-way for the planned widening of Tassajara
Road as established in the Precise Plan. This area
of existing roadway right-of-way shall be vacated
with the first Final Map for the project in accordance
with Subdivision Map Act Sections 66434(g) and
66436, and deeded to the Developer. The
Developer shall pay all administrative costs
associated with processing the vacation and grant
deed.
76. Tassajara Road Frontage Improvements. The PW Improvement Public
Developer shall install complete roadway and utility Plans for Works
improvements along the project's Tassajara Road Tassajara
frontage as shown on the Tentative Map. The Road
Developer shall also construct a sixteen-foot (16') approved and
wide raised landscaped median between the improvements
project's main driveway and the median bonded prior
improvements constructed with the Moller Ranch to first Final
development (Tract 8102). The curb-to-median curb Map
width shall be a minimum of forty four feet (44') and
include three 12' travel lanes and an 8' bike lane in
the southbound direction. At the intersection with
Fallon Road, the southbound curb-to-median curb
width shall be increased to provide one left turn
lane, two through lanes, two right turn lanes and a
bike lane.
Required roadway and utility improvements for the
widening of Tassajara Road along the project's
frontage shall include, but are not limited to:
installation of pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb
ramps, drainage structures, stormwater treatment
Page 21 of 36
measures, street trees, median landscaping,
irrigation, utilities, street lights, and fire hydrants. In
addition, signing, striping, pavement conforms and
transitions may be required to conform to the
existing pavement width on Tassajara Road north of
the project's main driveway. The Developer shall
be eligible for Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
(EDTIF) Section 1 credits for the cost of right-of-
way, improvements and design in an amount not to
exceed the costs included in the 2010 EDTIF
Update or subsequent updates.
77. Completion of Sidewalk. The Developer shall PW First Final Public
construct sidewalk and curb ramps at the northwest Map Works
curb return of the intersection of Tassajara Road
and the project's main driveway. In addition,
sidewalk shall be provided along the north side of
the project's main entrance road connecting to
Tassajara Road.
Crosswalks shall be provided across the project's
main entry road and across both approaches of
Tassajara Road at the project's main entry
intersection. Pedestrian ramps shall be provided at
all crosswalk approaches.
78. Intersection Visibility. Any sound walls or any PW First Final Public
architectural walls shall be designed to avoid the Map Works
visibility zone at the intersection of Tassajarra Road
and the project's main driveway. The Visibility
Zones shall be defined by the triangles established
at the intersection corners by applying the Corner
Sight Distance criteria of the current Caltrans
Highway Design Manual. Corner Sight Distance
shall be calculated using a 45 MPH speed along
Tassaarra Road.
79. Left Turn Pocket: The pocket length for the PW First Final Public
northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Map Works
Tassajarra Road and the project's main driveway
shall be 150 feet long. The bay taper for this left turn
lane shall be 120 feet long and designed according
to the City standards
80. Tassajara Road Bus Stop. The Developer shall PW Improvement Public
construct a bus stop, concrete bus pad and shelter Plans for Works
just south of the project's main driveway along Tassajara
southbound Tassajara Road. The final location of Road
the bus stop shall be approved by LAVTA and the approved and
City Engineer. In conjunction with the new bus improvements
stop, the Developer shall construct an eight foot (8') bonded prior
sidewalk between the project's main driveway and to first Final
the bus stop location (Approximately 100 feet). The Map
Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and
Page 22 of 36
installing these improvements.
81. Tassajara Road Traffic Signal: The project's main PW Signal Plans Public
driveway will form the fourth leg of the intersection and Works
of Tassajara Road and the entrance road to the improvements
Moller Ranch development (Tract 8102). The bonded prior
Moller Ranch development is conditioned to to first Final
construct a 3-legged traffic signal at this Map. Signal
intersection. The Developer shall modify the complete
Tassajara Road traffic signal as needed to prior to
accommodate the project's main driveway and occupancy of
required Tassajara Road frontage improvements. the 24th unit.
If the 3-legged traffic signal required to be
constructed by Moller Ranch has not been/will not
be completed prior to occupancy of the 24th unit, the
Developer shall be responsible for construction of a
3-legged traffic signal. In such case, the Developer
may enter into a reimbursement agreement for any
cost over 50% of the total estimated cost of a four-
legged signal.
82. Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Traffic Signal: The PW Signal Plans Public
Developer shall modify the existing traffic signal at and Works
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to accommodate improvements
the required Tassajara Road frontage bonded prior
improvements. to first Final
Map
83. Traffic Signal Interconnect. The Developer shall PW Signal Plans Public
interconnect the traffic signals at Fallon and Works
Road/Tassajara Road and Moller Ranch improvements
Drive/Tassajara Road/project main driveway. bonded prior
Project applicant shall provide one communication to first Final
modem/switch at the signal controller at each Map
location as well as one spare per signal location.
84. Tassajara Road Overhead Utility Lines: The PW First Final Public
Developer shall be responsible for undergrounding Map Works
or removing the two existing joint utility poles and
associated overhead utilities with the northwest
quadrant of the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road
intersection.
85. Tassajara Road Traffic Control: The Developer PW Issuance of Public
shall provide traffic control measures, including first Grading Works
flaggers if necessary, to allow for the safe ingress or Sitework
and egress of construction traffic to/from the project Permit
site from/to Tassajara Road. A traffic control plan
shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City Engineer and Traffic Engineer at least ten (10)
days prior to the start of any construction activities.
The traffic control measures shall be in place prior
to the start of construction and remain in place until
all traffic signal improvements at the project's main
Page 23 of 36
driveway are operational.
86. Tassajara Road, 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard: If PW First Final Public
applicable, the Developer shall pay the Map Works
proportionate cost of a 5t" northbound lane on
Tassajara Road from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard.
87. Private Streets: The owner shall dedicate private PW Approval of Public
street right-of-way and install complete street final map and Works
improvements for the proposed private streets improvement
within the development as shown on the Tentative plans
Map as Parcel A.
88. Private street and common area subdivision PW Final Map Public
improvements. Common area improvements, Works
private streets, private alleys and all other
subdivision improvements owned or maintained by
the homeowners' association are subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map
approval and shall be included in the Tract
Improvement Agreement. Such improvements
include, but are not limited to: curb & gutter,
pavement areas, sidewalks, access ramps &
driveways; enhanced street paving; parking spaces;
street lights (wired underground) and
appurtenances; drainage facilities; utilities;
landscape and irrigation facilities; open space
landscaping; stormwater treatment facilities; striping
and si na e; and fire hydrants.
89. Private Street Easements. Public Utility PW Final Map Public
Easements (PUE), Sanitary Sewer Easements Works
(SSE) and Water Line Easements (WLE) shall be
established over the entire private street right-of-
ways within all subdivisions. The PUE, SSE and
WLE dedication statements on each Final Map are
to recite that the easements are available for, but
not limited to, the installation, access and
maintenance of sanitary and storm sewers, water,
electrical and communication facilities. Project
entry monument signs and walls shall not be
located within these easements.
90. Private Street Easements. The Developer shall PW Final Map Public
dedicate Emergency Vehicle Access Easements Works
(EVAE) over the clear pavement width of all private
streets and alleys. Easement geometry shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Fire
Marshall.
91 . Emergency Vehicle Access Gate. Prior to the PW, PL, First Final Public
issuance of grading permits, the developer shall F Map creating Works
provide details of the EVA access way and gate to 30t" unit
Public Works, Fire and Planning.
92. Intersections. The design of all project PW Final Map or Public
Page 24 of 36
intersections shall be generally as shown on the improvement Works
Tentative Map and the Site Development Review. plans
The Developer shall submit a typical intersection
layout showing the design for the ramps, sidewalks,
entry walls, stop signs, landscape planters, street
trees, crosswalk locations and decorative pavement
to be approved by the City Engineer prior to the
submittal of the Improvement Plans. Decorative
pavement shall not be installed within crosswalks.
Final design details shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
93. Monuments. The Final Map shall include private PW Monuments Public
street monuments to be set in all private streets. to be shown Works
Private street monuments shall be set at all on Final Map
intersections and as determined by the City and installed
Engineer. prior to
acceptance of
improvements
94. Public Trail: The Developer shall dedicate Public PW Final Map Public
Access Easements and construct a six foot (6') wide creating said Works
concrete trail within Parcels C, E and the "Transfer parcels
Parcel" as shown on the Tentative Map to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
95. Stormwater Management. The provided PW Prior to Public
Stormwater Management Plan included with the approval of Works
Tentative Map is approved in concept only. The grading,
final Stormwater Management Plan is subject to improvement
City Engineer approval prior to approval of the Tract plans
Improvement Plans. Approval is subject to the
developer providing the necessary plans, details,
and calculations that demonstrate the plan complies
with the standards of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit
(MRP).
96. Stormwater Management. The proposed PW Prior to Public
Bioretention Basin #3 and Hydromodification Basin approval of Works
#4 as shown on Tentative Map shall be sized to grading,
accommodate the stormwater runoff from the improvement
additional impervious roadway pavement surface on plans
Tassajara Road constructed as part of the Moller
Creek culvert widening.
97. Stormwater Management. If the project is PW Grading, Public
developed in phases, suitable stormwater treatment improvement Works
and hydromodification measures shall be installed plans for each
with each phase such that the stormwater runoff phase
from the impervious areas created or replaced
within the boundaries of each phase shall be
properly treated and metered with stormwater
treatment and h dromodification measures
Page 25 of 36
constructed with that phase or in previous phases.
98. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance PW Final Map Standard
Agreement. Developer shall enter into an
Agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees
the property owner's perpetual maintenance
obligation for all stormwater treatment measures
installed as part of the project. Said Agreement is
required pursuant to Provision C.3 of the Municipal
Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-
2009-0074. Said permit requires the City to provide
verification and assurance that all treatment devices
will be properly operated and maintained. The
Agreement shall be recorded against the property
and shall run with the land.
99. Drainage Release Easements: The Developer PW Final Map Public
shall dedicate to the City of Dublin drainage release Works
easements on any privately owned parcels (HOA or
Trust) that accept storm drainage from public owned
streets or parcels.
100. Stormwater Source Control. "No Dumping Drains PW Final Map or Public
to Bay" storm drain medallions per City Standard improvement Works
Detail CD-704 shall be placed on all public and plans
private storm drain inlets.
101. Trash Capture. The project Stormwater PW Final Map or Public
Management Plan shall incorporate trash capture improvement Works
measures such as screens, filters or CDSNortex plans
units to address the requirements of Provision C.10
of the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
102. Grading. The toe of any slope shall be one foot PW Approval of Public
back of sidewalk. The top of any slope shall be Grading Works
three feet back of walkway. Minor exceptions may Plans or
be made in the above slope design criteria to meet issuance of
unforeseen design constraints subject to the grading
approval of the City Engineer. permit and on
going
103. Curb Ramps: Curb ramp layouts are not approved PW Approval of Standard
at this time. The number, location and layout of all improvement
curb ramps shall be reviewed and approved by the plans or start
City Engineer with the Improvement Plans of
associated with each Final Map. All pedestrian construction
ramps shall be designed and constructed to provide On going
direct access to marked or unmarked crosswalks.
Each pedestrian ramp shall be oriented such that it
is aligned and parallel to the marked or unmarked
crosswalk it is intended to serve. Pedestrian ramps
serving more than one marked or unmarked
crosswalk shall not be provided, unless specifically
Page 26 of 36
approved by the City Engineer.
104. Utilities. All new utility service connections, PW Approval of Standard
including electrical and communications, shall be Improvement
installed underground. Electrical transformers shall Plans or start
be installed in underground vaults within an of
appropriate utility easement or public service construction
easement. On going
105. Landscape Plans. Developer shall submit design PW 1S submittal Standard
development Landscape Plans with the first plan or
check for the street improvement plans and final improvement
map for each respective tract. The Landscape plans and
Plans shall show details, sections and supplemental approved with
information as necessary for design coordination of Final Map
the various civil design features and elements
including utility location to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Complete Landscape Plans shall be
concurrently approved with the Tract Improvement
Agreement and Final Map.
106. Street Light and Joint Trench Plans. Streetlight PW V submittal Standard
Plans and Joint Trench Plans shall be submitted or
with the first plan check for the street improvement improvement
plans and final map for each respective tract. The plans and
final streetlight plan and joint trench plan shall be approved
completed prior to Final Map approval for each prior to Final
respective subdivision. Map
107. Geotechnical Investigation. The Developer shall PW 1st submittal Standard
submit a design level geotechnical investigation of grading
report defining and delineating any seismic hazard. plans and on
The report shall be prepared in accordance with going
guidelines published by the State of California. The
report is subject to review and approval by a City
selected peer review consultant prior to the
acceptance of each Final map. The applicant shall
pay all costs related to the required peer review.
The recommendations of those geotechnical reports
shall be incorporated into the project plans subject
to the approval of the City Engineer.
108. Soils Report. The Developer shall submit a PW 1S submittal Public
detailed soils report prepared by a qualified of grading Works
engineer, registered with the State of California. The and
required report shall include recommendations improvement
regarding pavement sections for all project streets plans
including Tassajara Road and all internal streets. On going
Grading operations shall be in accordance with
recommendations contained in the required soils
report and grading shall be supervised by an
engineer registered in the State of California to do
such work.
109. Geotechnical En ineer Review and Approval. PW 1s submittal Public
Page 27 of 36
The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained of grading Works
to review all final grading plans and specifications. and
The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall approve all improvement
grading plans prior to City approval and issuance of plans
grading permits. On going
110. Grading. The disposal site and haul truck route for PW Approval of Public
any off-haul dirt materials shall be subject to the grading plans, Works
review and approval by the City Engineer prior to or start of
the approval the improvement plans or issuance of construction
a Grading Permit. If the Developer does not own or issuance of
the parcel on which the proposed disposal site is grading
located, the Developer shall provide the City with a permit
Letter of Consent, signed by the current owner,
approving the placement of off-haul material on their
parcel. A grading plan may be required for the
placement of the off-haul material.
111 . Dust Control/Street Sweeping. The Developer PW Start of Public
shall provide adequate dust control measures at all construction Works
times during the grading and hauling operations. All On going
trucks hauling export and import materials shall be
provided with tarp cover at all times. Spillage of
haul materials and mud-tracking on the haul routes
shall be prevented at all times. Developer shall be
responsible for sweeping of streets within,
surrounding and adjacent to the project if it is
determined that the tracking or accumulation of
material on the streets is due to its construction
activities.
112. Underground Obstructions. Prior to demolition, PW Prior to Standard
excavation and grading on any portion of the project grading and
site, all underground obstructions (i.e., debris, septic construction
tanks, fuel tanks, barrels, chemical waste) shall be
identified and removed pursuant to Federal, State
and local regulations and subject to the review and
approval by the City. Excavations shall be properly
backfilled using structural fill, subject to the review
and approval of the City Engineer.
PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS: GENERAL
113. Developer shall comply with the following City of PW On going Standard
Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of
Approval ("Standard Condition") unless specifically
modified by Project Specific Conditions of Approval
above.
114. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision PW On going Standard
Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, and
Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public
Works Standards and Policies, the most current
requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to
Page 28 of 36
accessibility, and all building and fire codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit.
All public improvements constructed by Developer
and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified
as "public works" under Labor Code section 1771.
Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such
improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing
Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following)
115. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold PW On going Standard
harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or
annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its
advisory agency, appeal board, Planning
Commission, City Council, Community
Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any
other department, committee, or agency of the City
related to this project to the extent such actions are
brought within the time period required by
Government Code Section 66499.37 or other
applicable law; provided, however, that The
Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly
notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or
proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the
defense of such actions or proceedings.
116. If there are conflicts between the Tentative Map PW On going Standard
approval and the SDR approval pertaining to
mapping or public improvements the Tentative Map
shall take precedent.
Agreement and Bonds
117. The Developer shall enter into a Tract Improvement PW First Final Standard
Agreement with the City for all public improvements Map &
including any required offsite storm drainage or Successive
roadway improvements that are needed to serve the Maps
Tract that have not been bonded with another Tract
Improvement Agreement.
118. The Developer shall provide performance (100%), PW First Final Standard
and labor & material (100%) securities to guarantee Map &
the tract improvements, approved by the City Successive
Engineer, prior to execution of the Tract Maps
Improvement Agreement and approval of the Final
Map. (Note: Upon acceptance of the improvements,
the performance security may be replaced with a
maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the
performance security.)
Fees
119. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect PW Zone 7 and Standard
Page 29 of 36
at the time of building permit Parkland In-
issuance including, but not limited to, Planning Lieu Fees
fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services due prior to
District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified filing each
School District School Impact fees, Public Works Final Map,
Traffic Impact fees, Alameda County Fire Services other fees
fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In- required with
Lieu fees, Alameda County Flood and Water issuance of
Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water building
Connection fees and any other fees as noted in the permits
Development Agreement.
120. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu PW Prior to filing Standard
fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in City final map
of Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, or in any resolution
revising these amounts and as implemented by the
Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution
195-99.
Permits
121. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit PW Start of work Standard
from the Public Works Department for all
construction activity within the public right-of-way of
any street where the City has accepted the
improvements. The encroachment permit may
require surety for slurry seal and restriping. At the
discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment for
work specifically included in an Improvement
Agreement may not be required.
122. Developer shall obtain a Grading/Sitework Permit PW Start of work Standard
from the Public Works Department for all grading
and private site improvements that serves more that
one lot or residential condominium unit.
123. Developer shall obtain all permits required by other PW Start of work Standard
agencies including, but not limited to Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies
of the permits to the Public Works Department.
Submittals
124. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply PW Approval of Standard
with the requirements of the "City of Dublin Public improvement
Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal plans or final
Requirements", and the "City of Dublin Improvement map
Plan Review Check List".
125. The Developer will be responsible for submittals PW Approval of Standard
and reviews to obtain the approvals of all improvement
participating non-City agencies. The Alameda plans or final
County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon map
Services District shall approve and sin the
Page 30 of 36
Improvement Plans.
126. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, PW Approval of Standard
which includes street pavement sections and improvement
grading recommendations. plans, grading
plans or final
map
127. Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Acceptance Standard
Department a digital vectorized file of the "master" of
CAD files for the project when the Final Map has improvements
been approved. Digital raster copies are not and release
acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in of bonds
AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. Drawing
units shall be decimal with the precision of the Final
Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be
colored by layer and named in English. All
submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate
System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State
Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot.
Final Ma
128. All Final Maps shall be substantially in accordance PW Approval of Standard
with the Tentative Maps approved with this Final Map
application, unless otherwise modified by these
conditions. Multiple final maps may be filed in
phases, provided that each phase is consistent with
the tentative map, that phasing progresses in an
orderly and logical manner and adequate
infrastructure is installed with each phase to serve
that phase as a stand-alone project that is not
dependent upon future phasing for infrastructure.
129. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required PW Approval of Standard
by the Tentative Map shall be shown on the Final Final Map
Map.
130. Any phasing of the final mapping or improvements PW Approval of Standard
of a Tentative Map is subject to the approval and Final Map
conditions of the City Engineer.
131. Street names shall be assigned to each PW Approval of Standard
public/private street pursuant to Municipal Code Final Map
Chapter 7.08. The approved street names shall be
indicated on the Final Map.
132. All Final Maps shall include street monuments to be PW Monuments Standard
set in all public streets. to be shown
on final map
and installed
prior to
acceptance of
improvements
Easements
133. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all PW Approval of Standard
applicable public agencies of existing easements improvement
Page 31 of 36
and right of ways that will no longer be used. plans or
appropriate
final map
134. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or PW Approval of Standard
obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property improvement
owners for any improvements on their property. The plans or
easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing appropriate
and copies furnished to the City Engineer. final map
Gradin
135. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the PW Approval of Standard
recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the grading plans
approved Tentative Map and/or Site Development or issuance of
Review, and the City design standards & grading
ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil permits.
engineer's recommendations and City ordinances, On going
the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply.
136. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included PW Approval of Standard
with the Grading Plan approval. The plan shall grading plans
include detailed design, location, and maintenance or issuance of
criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control grading
permits.
measures.
On oin
137. PW Approval of Standard
Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall grading plans
not cross property lines, or shall be located a or issuance of
minimum of 2' below the finished grade of the upper grading
lot. permits.
On goi ng
Improvements
138. The public improvements shall be constructed PW Approval of Standard
generally as shown on the Tentative Map and/or grading plans
Site Development Review. However, the approval or issuance of
of the Tentative Map and/or Site Development grading
Review is not an approval of the specific design of permits.
the drainage, sanitary sewer, water, and street On going
improvements.
139. PW Approval of Standard
All public improvements shall conform to the City of improvement
Dublin Standard Plans and design requirements plans or start
of
and as approved by the City Engineer.
construction.
ction.
On going
140. Public streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with PW Approval of Standard
minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. improvement
Private streets and alleys shall be at minimum 0.5% plans or start
slope. of
construction.
On going
141. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets shall PW Approval of Standard
Page 32 of 36
be 40-foot radius, all internal public streets curb improvement
returns shall be minimum 30-foot radius (36-foot plans or start
with bump outs) and private streets/alleys shall be a of
minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the City construction.
Engineer. Curb ramp locations and design shall On going
conform to the most current Title 24 and Americans
with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved
by the City Traffic Engineer.
142. Any decorative pavers/paving installed within City PW Approval of Standard
right-of-way shall be done to the satisfaction of the improvement
City Engineer. Where decorative paving is installed plans or start
at signalized intersections, pre-formed traffic signal of
loops shall be put under the decorative pavement. construction.
Decorative pavements shall not interfere with the On going
placement of traffic control devices, including
pavement markings. All turn lane stripes, stop bars
and crosswalks shall be delineated with concrete
bands or color pavers to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Maintenance costs of the decorative
paving shall be the responsibility of the
Homeowners Association.
143. PW Occupancy of Standard
The Developer shall install all traffic signs and units or
pavement marking as required by the City Engineer. acceptance of
improvements
144. Street light standards and luminaries shall be PW Occupancy of Standard
designed and installed per approval of the City units or
Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for acceptance of
streetlights is 5%. improvements
145. The Developer shall construct bus stops and PW Occupancy of Standard
shelters at the locations designated and approved units or
by the LAVTA and the City Engineer. The acceptance of
Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and improvements
installing these improvements.
146. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled PW Occupancy of Standard
water and sanitary sewer facilities required to serve units or
the project in accordance with DSRSD master acceptance of
plans, standards, specifications and requirements. improvements
147. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the PW Occupancy of Standard
Alameda County Fire Department. A raised reflector units or
blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street acceptance of
opposite each hydrant. improvements
148. The Developer shall furnish and install street name PW Occupancy of Standard
signs for the project to the satisfaction of the City units or
En ineer. acceptance of
Page 33 of 36
improvements
149. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV PW Occupancy of Standard
and communication improvements within the units or
fronting streets and as necessary to serve the acceptance of
project and the future adjacent parcels as approved improvements
by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility
a encies.
150. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, PW Occupancy of Standard
shall be underground in accordance with the City units or
policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be located acceptance of
and provided within public utility easements and improvements
sized to meet utility company standards.
151. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless PW Occupancy of Standard
specifically approved otherwise by the City units or
Engineer, shall be underground and placed in acceptance of
landscape areas and screened from public view. improvements
Prior to Joint Trench Plan approval, landscape
drawings shall be submitted to the City showing the
location of all utility vaults, boxes and structures and
adjacent landscape features and plantings. The
Joint Trench Plans shall be signed by the City
Engineer prior to construction of the joint trench
improvements.
Construction
152. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented PW On-going as Standard
between October 15th and April 15th unless needed
otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer.
The Developer will be responsible for maintaining
erosion and sediment control measures for one year
following the City's acceptance of the subdivision
improvements.
153. If archaeological materials are encountered during PW On-going as 1993
construction, construction within 100 feet of these needed EDEIR
materials shall be halted until a professional MM
Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of
California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of
Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an
opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find
and suggest appropriate mitigation measures.
154. Construction activities, including the maintenance PW On-going as Standard
and warming of equipment, shall be limited to needed
Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays,
between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.
except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Extended hours or Saturday work will be considered
by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis.
155. Developer shall prepare a construction noise PW Start of Standard
Page 34 of 36
management plan that identifies measures to be construction
taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding implementatio
developed properties. The plan shall include hours n and on-
of construction operation, use of mufflers on going as
construction equipment, speed limit for construction needed
traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor.
Specific noise management measures shall be
provided prior to project construction.
156. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction PW Start of Standard
traffic interface with public traffic on any existing construction
tio
public street. Construction traffic and parking may n and implementatio
be subject to specific requirements by the City going as
Engineer. needed
157. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling PW On-going Standard
any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to
construction activities.
158. The Developer shall be responsible for watering or PW On-going Standard
other dust-palliative measures to control dust as
conditions warrant or as directed by the City
Engineer.
159. The Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Issuance of Standard
Department with a letter from a registered civil Building
engineer or surveyor stating that the building pads permits or
have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades acceptance of
shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the improvements
top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the
locations shown on the approved Grading Plans.
Storm Water Quality (NPDES)
160. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall PW Start of any Standard
provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent construction
(NOI) has been sent to the California State Water activities
Resources Control Board per the requirements of
the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the
Public Works Department and be kept at the
construction site.
161. PW SWPPP to be Standard
The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared
(SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management prior to
Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project approval of
construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the improvement
erosion control measures in accordance with the plans,
regulations outlined in the most current version of implementatio
the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook n prior to start
or State Construction Best Management Practices of
Handbook. The Developer is responsible for construction
ensuring that all contractors implement all storm and on-going
water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. as needed.
Page 35 of 36
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
C:0ownloads=Reso Fredrich Vargas SDR VTM 7 22 14.docx
2298993.1
Page 36 of 36
RESOLUTION NO. 14-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS (FREDRICH/VARGAS) PROJECT
PLPA 2012-00051
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Tim Lewis Communities and STL Company LLC, proposes to
create a development of 48 single-family detached homes on an 11.11 acre site known as the
Frederick and Vargas properties. The proposed development and applications are collectively
known as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the application includes a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment to change the land use designations from: Medium-High Density Residential and
Neighborhood Commercial and combining the existing Medium Density Residential to a
combination of Medium Density Residential (6.16 acres) and Open Space (3.06 acres) and 1.89
acres of associated road right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the application also includes Planned Development rezoning with a related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map 8133; and
WHEREAS, the Project also includes a CEQA Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site consists of two existing parcels, the approximately 7.93
gross acre Fredrich property located at 6960 Tassajara Road and the approximately 5 gross
acre Vargas property at 7020 Tassajara Road (APNs 986-0004-002-01 and 986-0004-002-03);
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, development of the Project site was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The 6.16 acre portion of the Project was included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
for the Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing project adopted on May 16, 2006 by City Council
Resolution No. 71-06. The 4.95 acre portion of the Project site was addressed in 2007 in an
MND for the Vargas project, adopted by City Council Resolution 57-07 (SCH #2007032020).
The prior reviews are further described in the draft City Council resolution attached as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, based on the prior CEQA reviews and a related Initial Study, the City
prepared a CEQA Addendum, concluding and documenting that potential environmental effects
of the Project are adequately addressed in the prior CEQA reviews, as further described in
attached Exhibit A; and
Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT _5
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public
hearing on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated July 22, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference
described and analyzed the Project and related Addendum for the Planning Commission and
recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum, as well as the prior
EIR and MNDs and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before
making a recommendation on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin
recommends that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study,
attached as Exhibit A (and incorporated herein by reference), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Tassajara Highlands (FredrichNargas) project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of July 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
2266440.1
2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM AND A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS (FREDRICH/VARGAS) PROJECT
PLPA 2013-00035
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Tim Lewis Communities and STL Company LLC, proposes to
create a development of 48 single-family detached homes on an 11 .11 acre site known as the
Frederick and Vargas properties. The proposed development and applications are collectively
known as the "Project", and
WHEREAS, the application includes a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment to change the land use designations from: Medium-High Density Residential and
Neighborhood Commercial and combining the existing Medium Density Residential to a
combination of Medium Density Residential (6.16 acres) and Open Space (3.06 acres) and 1.89
acres of associated road right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the application also includes Planned Development rezoning with a related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map 8133; and
WHEREAS, the Project also includes a CEQA Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site consists of two existing parcels, the approximately 7.93
gross acre Fredrich property located at 6960 Tassajara Road and the approximately 5 gross
acre Vargas property at 7020 Tassajara Road (APNs 986-0004-002-01 and 986-0004-002-03);
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental
Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May
10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR
identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could
not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring
program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein
by reference); and
WHEREAS, based on Medium Density Residential and General Commercial land use
designations for the Fredrich property, the Eastern Dublin EIR assumed future development of
up to dwellings and sf of commercial use. On May 16, 2006, the City Council
approved Resolution 71-06 (incorporated herein by reference) for a supplemental Mitigated
Page I of 4 EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 5
Negative Declaration (MND) for the Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing project, which also included
annexation of the Fredrich property but no proposed development or change in land use on the
site; and
WHEREAS, based on Medium Density and Medium High Density Residential land use
designations for the Vargas property, the Eastern Dublin EIR assumed future development of
up to 55 dwellings. On , 2007, the City Council approved Resolution 57-07 (incorporated
herein by reference) for a supplemental MND for the Vargas project consisting of 33 dwellings;
and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from
development of the Eastern Dublin area and the Project site, some of which would apply to the
Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding
Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the
proposed Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the
Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated , 2014 describing the project and
finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the prior
EIR and MNDs. The Addendum and its supporting Initial Study is attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public
hearing on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated July 22, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project and related Addendum for the Planning Commission and
recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-XX
(incorporated herein by reference) recommending that the City Council adopt the CEQA
Addendum for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on 2014 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing
on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a staff report dated , 2014 and incorporated herein by reference
described and analyzed the project and related Addendum for the City Council and
recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on , 2014 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing
on the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum, as well as the prior EIR and
MNDs and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking any
action on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
2 of 4
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings to
support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the
proposed project. These findings are based on information contained in the CEQA Addendum,
the prior CEQA documents, the City Council staff report, and all other information contained in
the record before the City Council. These findings constitute a summary of the information
contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the
CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, the prior CEQA documents, and elsewhere in the
record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding that are not included
below are incorporated herein by reference:
1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previous projects
affecting the Project site as addressed in the prior CEQA documents, that will require major
revisions to the prior documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all
potentially significant effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for
project which were previously addressed. The proposed Project will not result in substantially
more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior CEQA documents. All
previously adopted mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR and prior MNDs continue
to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable.
2. The Addendum and its related Initial Study did not identify any new significant impacts
of the proposed Project that were not analyzed in the prior CEQA documents.
3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial
changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet
any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the
following:
1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project
because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards
under Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met.
2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and related Initial Study under
CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or
Supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project.
3. The City Council considered the information in the Addendum and prior CEQA
documents before approving the land use applications for the proposed Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the
CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A (and incorporated herein by
reference), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Tassajara
Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the
Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by
reference.
3 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2014 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
2298196.1
4 of 4
CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS PROJECT
PLPA-2012-00051
July 22,2014
On May 10, 1993,the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93,certifying an
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH#91103064).The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and
Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR
dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development project alternative.The City Council
adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the
reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994,the City Council adopted a
second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin.The Eastern
Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a
20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR,many implementing projects have been
proposed,relying to various degrees on the certified EIR.
In 2006,a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Mission Peak and Fallon
Crossing project,which also included the 8.58-acre Fredrich property in the analysis. In
this Addendum,this document will be referred to as the Fredrich Project Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND). The MND was approved by the City Council on May 16,
2006 by Resolution No. 71-06 and addressed all topics included in the standard CEQA
checklist. The MND analyzed the impacts of prezoning,annexing and developing up to
103 single-family dwellings on the 67.8-acre Mission Peak property on the east side of
Tassajara Road south of Moller Creek.The MND did not assume any development on the
Fredrich property as part of the analysis; however,the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
EIR assumed the ultimate development of 68 dwellings on the Fredrich site (EDSP,
Appendix 4).
In 2007,the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 57-07 that approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 5-acre (gross) site Vargas property. In this Initial
Study,this CEQA document will be called the Vargas MND.The Vargas MND analyzed
the environmental impacts of amending the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan at a less intense land use density than the 55 units assumed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR,approving a Stage 1 Development Plan and prezoning for the property,
approving a pre-annexation agreement and requesting annexation to the site to the City of
Dublin.The project included development of 33 single-family dwellings on the site and
analyzed all environmental topics included in the standard CEQA checklist.The State
Clearinghouse Number for this CEQA document is#2007032020.
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the
Project,as described below.
EXHIBIT A
Project Description
The proposed project includes demolishing the two existing single-family dwellings on
the site and other accessory buildings, subdividing the site into up to 54 single-family
lots,two internal small private open space areas,and a large open space area including a
public pathway on the western and southern sides of the site, grading of the site,
extension of utilities and constructing one dwelling on each of the lots.
The applicant has requested approvals of the following in order to implement the project:
amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,a PD rezoning
with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan,a Site Development Review (SDR)
Permit and a Vesting Tentative Map.
Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations
As summarized above and discussed in more detail in the attached Initial Study,the Tassajara
Highlands property has been planned for urbanization since the Eastern Dublin approvals in
1993, and has been the subject of two previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declarations
(MNDs). The Tassajara Highlands property consists of merging the adjacent Fredrich and
Vargas properties into a single property for purposes of development.The Eastern Dublin EIR
identified numerous environmental impacts, and numerous mitigations were adopted upon
approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.For identified
impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance,the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. Similarly,Mitigated Negative Declarations for the Fredrich
property in 2006 and the Vargas property in 2007 identified supplemental impacts and
mitigation measures. All previously adopted mitigation measures for development of Eastern
Dublin identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR,the 2006 Fredrich property MND and the 2007
Vargas property MND that are applicable to the project and project site continue to apply to
the currently proposed Project as further discussed in the attached Initial Study.
Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this
Project.
Updated Initial Study.The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate
CEQA review for the Project,which proposes minor changes to the land use designations and
Planned Development zoning. If approved,the proposed project would reduce the number of
potential dwellings on the site from up to 101 to up to 54 dwellings.
The applicant is also seeking City approval of amendments to the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and 2 Development
Plan, Site Development Review approval and a Vesting Tentative Map.
The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated July 22,2014,incorporated herein by
reference,to assess whether any further environmental review is required for this Project
Through this Initial Study,the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative
Declaration is required for the plan and zoning amendments or the refined development
details.
Page 2
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a
review of these conditions,the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or negative
declaration is required for this Project. This is based on the following analysis:
a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant
impacts?There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR,as supplemented by the 2006 MND. and 2007 MND.The Project is
similar to land uses for the project site analyzed in all previous CEQA documents and
the number of dwellings has been reduced. As demonstrated in the Initial Study,the
proposed land uses on the site is not a substantial change to either the 1993 Eastern
Dublin EIR analysis or the 2006 MND or the 2007 MND analysis and will not result
in additional significant impacts,and no additional or different mitigation measures
are required.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving
new or more severe significant impacts?There are no substantial changes in the conditions
assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR,the 2006 MND or the 2007 MND.This is documented
in the attached Initial Study prepared for this Project dated July 22,2014.
c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a
significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe;
or,previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined
to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous
EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt
them? As documented in the attached Initial Study,there is no new information showing a
new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the prior CEQA
documents. Similarly,the Initial Study documents that no new or different mitigation
measures are required for the Project. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply
to the Project.The CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts and mitigations
associated with the proposed development on the Fredrich and Vargas properties.
d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration
be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is
required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise,of the Project beyond
those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and previous CEQA documents for the site,as
documented in the attached Initial Study.
Conclusion.This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based
on the attached Initial Study dated July 22,2014.The Addendum and Initial Study review the
proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments,the Planned
Development rezoning, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map as
discussed above.Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study,the City
determines that the above minor changes in land uses do not require a subsequent EIR or
Page 3
negative declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and
15163.The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR,the 2006 MND and the 2007
MND adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the land use designation
change for the Fredrich and Vargas properties as documented in the attached Initial Study.
As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines,the Addendum need not be circulated for
public review,but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making
a decision on this project.
The Initial Study,Eastern Dublin EIR,the 2006 MND,the 2007 MND and all resolutions
cited above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during
normal business hours in the Community Development Department,Dublin City Hall, 100
Civic Plaza,Dublin CA.
Page 4
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of
the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those
impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable
(Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993). The City Council carefully considered each
impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval
of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The
City Council is currently considering the Tassajara Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas)
project. The project proposes a residential development on the west side of
Tassajara Road at 6960 and 7020 Tassajara Road. The project site was also
analyzed in two supplemental Mitigated Negative Declarations. The first was for
the Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing project and was adopted on May 16, 2006 by
City Council Resolution No. 71-06. The second was for the Vargas project and
was adopted through City Council Resolution 57-07 on May 1, 2007.
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the
original land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin. Pursuant to a
2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding considerations
for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the Tassajara
Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) project.1 The City Council believes that many of
the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR will be
substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the original Eastern
Dublin approvals and the subsequent 2006 and 2007 approvals, to be
implemented with the development of the project. Even with mitigation, the City
Council recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it
unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified
adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the project have not been mitigated to
acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use,
and other considerations that support approval of the project.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the
Tassajara Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) project.
Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands;
Visual Impacts 3.8/13; and Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. Although
development has occurred south of the project area, the site is largely
.,
...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the
later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a
Better Environment v. California Resources Agency 103 Cal.App. 4th 98, _(2002).
1
EXHIBIT B
undeveloped open space land. Future development of the Tassajara Highlands
site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.318, 3.31E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway
Impacts: While city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through
planned improvements, transportation demand management, the 1-580 Smart
Corridor program and other similar measures, mainline freeway impacts continue
to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Future
development on the Tassajara Highlands site will generate less traffic than
anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but will still incrementally contribute to the
unavoidable freeway impacts.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.311, 3.31M. Santa Rita Road/1-580 Ramps,
Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts: The project will be required to implement
all applicable adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the
City's TIF program; however even with mitigation these impacts continue to be
identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.41S. Consumption of Non-
Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage Impact
3.51F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment,
Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution System: Future development of the
project will contribute to increased energy consumption.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.618. Earthquake Ground Shaking,
Primary Effects: Even with seismic design, future development of the project
could be subject to damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the
Eastern Dublin planning area.
Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, 8, C, and E. Future development of the project will
contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions,
mobile and stationary source emissions.
3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the
benefits of the Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and
potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future
development on the Tassajara Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) site against its
benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed
by the benefits of the project as further set forth below.
The project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the
comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals.
Prior approvals provided important protections to Tassajara Creek and through
reasonable and protective designations for sensitive creek areas; the project will
implement these protections through previously adopted mitigation measures
and current development standards. The project will provide approximately 48
2
units of needed housing as well as maintaining open space on the site.
Development of the site will also provide construction employment opportunities
for Dublin residents.
2298238.1
3
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS
PROJECT
(Vargas & Fredrich Parcels)
PLPA 2012- 00051
INITIAL STUDY
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag,Urban Planner
July 22,2014
Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................2
Applicant/Contact Person...........................................................................................3
Project Location and Context ......................................................................................3
Prior Environmental Review Documents..................................................................4
ProjectDescription........................................................................................................6
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................17
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................19
Attachment to Initial Study .........................................................................................32
1. Aesthetics ...............................................................................................32
2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources .................................................36
3. Air Quality .............................................................................................38
4. Biological Resources .............................................................................41
5. Cultural Resources................................................................................50
6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................53
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................56
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................57
9. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................59
10. Land Use and Planning........................................................................63
11. Mineral Resources.................................................................................64
12. Noise .......................................................................................................64
13. Population and Housing......................................................................67
14. Public Services.......................................................................................67
15. Recreation...............................................................................................70
16. Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................71
17. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................75
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................78
InitialStudy Preparers .................................................................................................79
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ....................................................................79
References ......................................................................................................................79
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts
of implementing the proposed project described below.
The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief
explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Because the
proposed project is generally based on the land use designations, circulation patterns
etc. assigned to the project by the City of Dublin General Plan, the Initial Study relies on
a Program EIR certified by the City in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064). That
EIR, also known in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR," evaluated the
following impacts: Land Use, Population, Employment and Housing, Traffic and
Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage,
Soils, Geology and Seismicity, Biological Resources, Visual Resources, Cultural
Resources, Noise, Air Quality and Fiscal Considerations.
In 2006, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Mission Peak/Fallon
Crossing project, which also included the 8.58-acre Fredrich property in the analysis.
This CEQA document was approved by the City Council on May 16, 2006 by Resolution
No. 71-06. The Fredrich Project MND analyzed the impacts of prezoning, annexing and
developing up to 103 single-family dwellings on the 67.8-acre Mission Peak property on
the east side of Tassajara Road south of Moller Creek. The MND included the Fredrich
property on the west side of Tassajara Road but did not assume any development on
the Fredrich property as part of the analysis; however, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and EIR assumed the ultimate development of 68 dwellings on the Fredrich site (EDSP,
Appendix 4).
In 2007, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 57-07 that approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 4.35-acre Vargas property. This will be referred
to as the "Vargas Project MND." The Vargas Project MND analyzed the environmental
impacts of amending the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan from
Medium-High to a Medium Density land use designation, approving a Stage 1
Development Plan and prezoning for the property, approving a pre-annexation
agreement and requesting annexation to the site to the City of Dublin. The project
included development of 33 dwellings on the site.
The subject of this Initial Study is a proposed General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan
Amendment, a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site
Development Review (SDR), a vesting tentative subdivision map and related
applications to develop the 12.93-acre Tassajara Highlands residential project, that
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
includes both the Vargas and Fredrich properties, located in the Eastern Dublin portion
of the City of Dublin. The Development Plan includes construction of up to 54 single-
family residential dwellings, internal roadways, open spaces and other related
improvements.
Applicant:
Tim Lewis Communities and STL Company, LLC
3500 Douglas Blvd., Suite 270
Roseville CA 95661
Attn: Michael O'Hara
(916) 783-2300
Project Location and Context
The project is located in the northern area of the Eastern Extended Planning area of the
City of Dublin as identified in the Dublin General Plan. More specifically, the project
site is located on the west side of Tassajara Road and east of Tassajara Creek. Moller
Creek, a tributary of Tassajara Creek, extends through the project site at its southern
boundary.
The site consists of two separate property ownerships that comprise the Tassajara
Highlands project. The Vargas property is the northern portion of the site and contains
approximately 4.35 acres of land. The Fredrich property comprises the southern portion
of the project site and contains approximately 8.58 acres of land. As part of the
Tentative Map approval process and the filing of the Final map, the two existing parcels
will be effectively merged and re-subdivided with the recordation of the Final Map.
Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 2 shows the location of the
project site in context with nearby features, including nearby roadways and adjacent
creeks.
Existing land uses adjacent to the project site includes the Tipper property to the north
(currently owned by the Singh family) that is a rural homestead. Land to the west is
within a permanent open space easement area within and adjacent to Tassajara Creek.
The Dublin Ranch West development (also known as the Wallis Ranch) lies west of the
open space easement and has been approved for residential development at a mix of
densities and product types. Moller Creek flows immediately to the south of the project
site. Located to the southeast of the project site is a residential project, known as the
Fallon Crossing/Mission Peak that is currently under construction by Standard Pacific
consisting of 106 single-family units. Additionally, located to the northeast of the
project site is a proposed residential project by Braddock & Logan known as Moller
Ranch. This project consists of up to 370 single-family lots.
The 4.35-acre Vargas property comprises the northern portion of the overall Tassajara
Highlands project site. The Vargas property contains one single-family dwelling and
accessory outbuildings generally along the Tassajara Road frontage. The Vargas
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
property has a gradual slope from the south to the northwest toward Tassajara Creek.
Much of the Vargas site is vacant and was previously used for animal grazing. The
Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Number for the Vargas property is 986-0004-002-01.
The 8.58-acre Fredrich property comprises the southern portion of the Tassajara
Highlands project site. This property contains one single-family dwelling and is
characterized by a moderately steep hill in the northern portion of the site. The site then
has a moderate slope to the southwest towards Moller Creek and Tassajara Creek. One
single-family dwelling has been constructed on the Fredrich property. The County
Assessors Parcel Number for the Fredrich property is 986-0004-002-03.
A number of native and ornamental trees exist on the Tassajara Highlands site.
Exhibit 3 shows the location and configuration of the Tassajara Highlands project site,
the two properties that comprise the site and existing topographic features.
Prior Environmental Review Documents
The project has been included in three previous CEQA documents, as noted below:
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (State
Clearinghouse #91103064). A Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment (Eastern Extended Planning Area) and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was certified by the City Council in 1993 by Resolution
No. 51-93. This document and its related Addenda collectively are referred to as the
"Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR." It evaluated the following impacts:
Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation,
Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils,
Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources;Visual Resources; Cultural
Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93)
for the following impacts:
Cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic,
extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone
service), consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy
uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of
the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and
concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise and alteration of
visual character.
The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally
adequate.
Mission Peak and Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration
In 2006, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Mission Peak and
Fallon Crossing project, which also included the 8.58-acre Fredrich property in the
analysis. In this Initial Study, this document will be referred to as the Fredrich
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Project Mitigated Negative Declaration. The MND was approved by the City
Council on May 16, 2006 by Resolution No. 71-06 and addressed all topics included
in the standard CEQA checklist. The Mission Peak MND analyzed the impacts of
prezoning, annexing and developing up to 103 single-family dwellings on the 67.8-
acre Mission Peak property on the east side of Tassajara Road south of Moller Creek.
The Mission Peak MND did not assume any development on the Fredrich property
as part of the analysis; however, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR assumed
the ultimate development of 68 dwellings on the Fredrich site (EDSP, Appendix 4).
Vargas Property Mitigated Negative Declaration
In 2007, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 57-07 that approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 5-acre (gross) site Vargas property. In this
Initial Study, The Vargas MND analyzed the environmental impacts of amending
the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan at a less intense land use
density, approving a Stage 1 Development Plan and prezoning for the property,
approving a pre-annexation agreement and requesting annexation to the site to the
City of Dublin. The project included development of 33 single-family dwellings on
the site and analyzed all environmental topics included in the standard CEQA
checklist. The State Clearinghouse Number for this CEQA document is #2007032020.
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Project Description
Overview. The proposed project includes demolishing the two existing single-family
dwellings on the site and other accessory buildings, subdividing the site into up to 54
single-family lots, two internal small private open space areas, and a large open space
area including a pathway on the western and southern sides of the site, grading of the
site, extension of utilities and constructing one dwelling on each of the lots.
The applicant has requested approvals of the following in order to implement the
project: amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a PD
rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development
Review (SDR) Permit, a Vesting Tentative Map.
Development Plan. The proposed development plan for the site is shown on Exhibit 4.
As shown, the main vehicular entry to the site would be at a signalized intersection
with Tassajara Road which is also the main entry to the Moller Ranch development
project to the east. Individual lots would be located off of the interior loop road, further
described in the section below.
Lot sizes for the single-family residences would generally range from a minimum of
3,670 square feet (smallest) to 6,907 square feet. All dwellings would be two stories in
height and the sizes of dwellings would also vary. On-site parking on each lot would be
provided as well as on-street and guest parking spaces. Two small private open space
areas are located within the site, one at the north end and one at the south end. A series
of storm drain bio-retention ponds, linked with a detention pond would be used on the
south side of the project site and for the purpose of detaining peak stormwater flows
from the site and filtering water prior to release into Moller Creek.
An open space buffer would also be provided along the western and southern
boundaries of the project site, between the development portions of Tassajara
Highlands and Tassajara Creek and Moller Creek. A pathway is planned to be
constructed within this buffer.
A sound barrier wall is proposed to be constructed along the Tassajara Road right-of-
way from the most northerly lot south to Private Drive B. Retaining walls south of
Private Drive B/EVAE are proposed to be constructed at various locations on the east
side of the project site adjacent to Tassajara Road. Landscaping is proposed to be
installed between the edge of Tassajara Road and the sound barrier and retaining walls.
Circulation and access. As noted above, a main east-west entry road would be
provided from Tassajara Road. This road would have a variable right-of-way width
between 74 and 80 feet. The intersection of this street and Tassajara Road is planned to
be signalized. The entry road would lead to an interior north-south looped road system
that would terminate in a cul-de-sac on the northern portion of the site. To the south,
this road would circle around a development area and reconnect with the north-south
link.
City of Dublin Page 6
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Interior roads would generally have a paved width of 28-feet that would accommodate
vehicle parking on one side of this roadway. In addition, at the northern portion of the
project site, there would be a 3-space parking area. No parking would be allowed on the
main entry road into the project site.
All project roadways would have sidewalks adjacent to travel lanes.
Landscaping. Exhibit 5 depicts the preliminary landscape plan for the project site.
Utility services. Domestic water service and sewer service would be provided by
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The project developer would be required
to install mainline extension of sewer and water from the southern portion of the project
site thorough Private Drive B/EVAE into the proposed project.
Preliminary storm drainage plans include collecting storm water runoff into a series of
underground storm drain lines and transporting storm water flows in a southerly
direction into a series of stormwater bio-retention ponds and a detention pond at the
southern portion of the site. Following treatment, storm water would be metered out to
replicate the existing, predevelopment site condition. All storm water from the site
would then be transported into a new outfall for release into Moller Creek, which then
joins up with Tassajara Creek southwest of the project site. Improvements within and
immediately adjacent to Moller Creek, south of the project site, include a culvert and
related grading, and are not included in the Tassajara Highlands project. Moller Creek
improvements are a separate project with environmental impacts analyzed in a separate
Supplemental EIR (Moller Ranch/Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project SEIR, SCH
# 200502146, certified by the Dublin City Council on December 18, 2012).
Grading. The applicant proposes to grade the site to allow construction of the
residential areas, roadways and the bio-retention/detention ponds, which would
partially be located on the project site. The grading concept would be to reduce the
height of the existing hill feature and use the earthen material to fill other, flatter
portion of the site. The preliminary grading plan indicates approximately 64,000 cubic
yards of material would be hauled off of the site. This includes approximately 5,000
cubic yards of material that would be removed to create the bio-retention and storm
drain detention basins. No destination for the material has been identified, but will be
prior to issuance of a grading permit by the City. Erosion controls would be
implemented during grading activities pursuant to City and Regional Water Quality
Board requirements, as enforced by the City of Dublin, to protect surface water quality.
A number of retaining walls are proposed to be constructed on the site, ranging in
height from approximately 1 foot to 8 feet.
Biological and hydrological resources. The applicant prepared an Addendum to the
2012 Biological Resources Analysis for the Tassajara Highlands Residential
Development Project (May 2014). This document provides the current status of
biological surveys for the site, including a wetland delineation verified by the USACE
July 26, 2013, provides a status report on the regulatory permitting, and identifies
avoidance and minimization measures (such as pre-construction surveys) in compliance
City of Dublin Page 7
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
with CEQA mitigation measures. The applicant will remove any trees or out-buildings
slated for removal during the biological window when potential special-status roosting
bats are not present. This proactive avoidance measure is included in the Vargas MND
and will also serve to remove trees before the bird nesting period.
Inclusionary housing. The City of Dublin's inclusionary zoning ordinance requires that
12.5% of a project's dwelling units must be affordable to very low, low and moderate
income households. Compliance could consist of constructing the required number of
inclusionary units and/or paying an in-lieu fee to the City, or some other form of
compliance subject to approval by the City.
Requested land use approvals. A number of land use approvals are required from the
City of Dublin to construct the project as proposed. These are described in more detail
below.
General Plan Amendment
The City of Dublin General Plan Designates the Tassajara Highlands site as a mix of
Medium Density Residential on the Vargas property and a combination of
Medium/High Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial on the Fredrich
property. The proposed General Plan land use designations would be a combination
of Medium Density Residential and Open Space.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Similar to the requested General Plan Amendment, land use designations on the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land Use Maps would be changed from Medium
Density Residential, Medium/High Density Residential and Neighborhood
Commercial to a combination of Medium Density Residential and Open Space.
PD rezoning with related Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan.
Previously approved Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans would be replaced by
the proposed Development Plan shown on Exhibit 4. A rezoning is being considered
to ensure consistency with the requested General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendments.
Vesting Tentative Map. A Vesting Tentative Tract Map is proposed to subdivide the
site into single-family lots, roads and other facilities.
City of Dublin Page 8
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
S A N P A B L 0
q Martinez 4
BAY
San 80 Concord
Rafael 6w
Richmond
580
Mill 101
Valley Walnut
24 Creek
Berkeley
680
0
Oakland
580
San Francisco gid�@aa
S A N San
Leandro
DUBLIN
F R A N CISCO N0
seo
Daly
City Livermore
B A Y
t 1 101
Hayward Pleasanton
�. 92
280
San Mateo Fremont
n �
t Newark
O Redwood
City
Half 84
Moon
Bay Palo
(0 Alto
F, ^' 880
9 Y
h
85 101
680
9
d 280 Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
ro
e
<" San
Jose 101
n
m
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
CITY OF DUBLIN
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS PROJECT 0 z a s a 10 miles
INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT SITE �-
STA C-
OUN ,--
CpN RA%oA
COLJ
ALA MED
a
0
m
a�
OG/e,, Drive
O
a Central Parkwa
T
0
Dublin Blvd
6
0
U
2 1-580
m
m
a
P\LaP �
� � o
rn� a
� = W
�n
Exhibit 2
CITY OF DUBLIN
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS PROJECT SITE CONTEXT
INITIAL STUDY
,t�
c ?
P�°
a
N
e�
W
X
x cc
CL
L �*
t'
� "• . �� _� ,"x �„�'� as � x
R
t
1 �4 may}
t
a
w
Ar .
r.
� a
t
r �
a-t w 44
IL
iw� LL
LIJ
cn
f � m
fah c J
/7 LU
%� �• c Z
a 0 IL
CL
Y
a p1p w 0 W
W
;a
I
j I
,�.
e
w
1 � � gg d.a
F
r #9
�k I
I
a
I`1
m
o Mme,
e
9
Pa�&
CA aa I r
k
i
\
r.
1
U
w
\ O
cc
CL
cn
o
Z
cc
ea
o
A P,
a Z _
C3 <
F-
U o <
W
j H N H
O(j) z
Z
Q
J
t CL
W
L Cl)
UJ
LU� E
R a53 i t J' �.✓.�� as ..�
4 M 1
4
/, � j � � ,ice "�i«.. •� N �� X ::, Y � � » �;}'.
iI + `
rn M d tX �
P Y
i d
l
of 1dtva' 'WAY
" x — W
Cl
Z 0
� J 2
9
LL
o a
cn a
1. Project description: Development of the Tassajara Highlands site with up
to 54 single-family residences, open spaces and roads.
The project includes demolition of existing structures,
re-grading of the site, installation of retaining walls
and construction of a series of water quality ponds
and a detention basin. Requested land use
entitlements include amendments to the General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a PD rezoning with
related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Site
Development Review (SDR) and a Vesting Tentative
Map
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
3. Contact persons: Michael A Porto
Consulting Planner
(925) 833 6610
4. Project location: Generally located on the west side of Tassajara Road
and east of Tassajara Creek. Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 986-0004-002-01 & -03
5. Project sponsor: Tim Lewis Communities and STL Company, LLC
6. General Plan designation: Existing:
Medium Density Residential
Medium/High Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Proposed:
Medium Density Residential
Open Space
7. Zoning: PD-Planned Development
8. Other public agency required approvals:
• Approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement (City of Dublin);
• 1602/3 Streambed Alteration Permit (California Department of Fish
and Game, possible);
City of Dublin Page 15
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• State Incidental Take Permit (California Department of Fish and
Game, possible);
• Section 404 Permit including a Section 7 consultation (under the
Endangered Species Act) from the United States Department of Fish
and Wildlife (United States Army Corps of Engineers, possible);
• Section 401 Clean Water Certification (San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board, possible);
• Notice of Intent (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board);
• Issuance of demolition, building and grading permits (City of
Dublin); and
• Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD)
City of Dublin Page 16
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
_ Aesthetics _ Agricultural - Air Quality
Resources
Biological _ Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils
Resources
Hazards and - Hydrology/Water _ Land Use/
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
Mineral Resources -- Noise -- Population/
Housing
-- Public Services _ Recreation - Transportation/
Circulation
--
Utilities/Service - Mandatory
Systems Findings of
Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the
City of Dublin adequately addresses potential impacts.
_I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative
Declaration will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be any new or substantially more severe significant effect in
this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed on the proposed Project, except for those impacts which were identified as
significant and unavoidable and for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations
was previously adopted by the City. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin
Environmental Impact Report, the 2006 Mission Peak Properties/Fallon Crossing
MND and the 2007 Vargas Property MND will be prepared.
_I find that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
City of Dublin Page 17
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards,
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project.
Signature: `,1 Date:
Printed Name. J For:
City of Dublin Page 18
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as
well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially
significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,
"Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). The checklist will include a response
"no new impact" in these circumstances. In this case, a brief discussion should
identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less-Than-Significant with
Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
City of Dublin Page 19
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances,
etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist
that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or
threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures
identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
City of Dublin Page 20
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of
sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found Potentially Less Than Less than No New
following the checklist. Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
1.Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X
vista? (Source: 2,3,4,6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including X
but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings,and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 2,3,4,6)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character X
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 2,3,4,6)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare X
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?(Source: 6)
2.Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance,as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency,to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 2,6)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, X
or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 2,6)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which,due to their location or nature,could
result in conversion of farmland to a non- X
agricultural use? (Source: 2,6)
3.Air Quality(Where available,the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following determinations). Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X
applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2,7)
b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air X
quality violation? (Source: 2,7)
City of Dublin Page 21
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase X
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
(2,3,4,7)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations? (Source: 2,6)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X
number of people?(Source: 6)
4.Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly
through habitat modifications,on any species X
identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special
status species in local or regional plans,policies
or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?(Source: 2,3,4,7)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian X
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,policies or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 2,3,4,7)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally X
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act(including but not limited to
marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct
removal,filling,hydrological interruption or
other means?
(Source: Source: 2,3,4,7)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any X
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 3,4,7)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X
protecting biological resources,such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 1,7)
City of Dublin Page 22
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local, X
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Source: 1,7)
5.Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in X
Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,3,4,7)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource X
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,3,7)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X
paleontological resource,site or unique geologic
feature?(Source: 2,3,7)
d) Disturb any human remains,including those X
interred outside of a formal cemetery?(6,7)
6.Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects,including the risk of
loss,injury,or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated
on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X
issued by the State Geologist or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault(Source: 2,
3,4,7)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2,6) X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X
liquefaction? (2,3,4,7)
iv) Landslides? (2,3,4,7) X
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X
topsoil? (Source: 2,3,6)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable,or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on- X
or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,
subsidence,liquefaction or similar hazards
(Source: 2,3,4,7)
d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property? X
(Source: 2,3,4,7)
City of Dublin Page 23
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available X
for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 1,2)
7.Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,use or
disposal of hazardous materials X
(Source: 3,4)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Source: 3,4)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials, X
substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school? (Source: 3,4)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and,as a result, X
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Source: 7)
e) For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted
within two miles of a public airport of public use
airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?(Source: 7)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, X
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 7)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? X
(Source: 7)
City of Dublin Page 24
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, X
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1,2,4,5)
8.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 2,5 ) X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer X
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g. the production rate of existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted?(2)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X
the site or area,including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river,in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?(Source: 2,5,6)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X
the site or areas,including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river,or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 5,6)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would X
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Source: 5)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
(Source: 3,5)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X
delineation map?(Source: 7)
City of Dublin Page 25
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood X
flows?(Source: 7)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss,injury,and death involving flooding, X
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? (7)
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? (5) X
9.Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
(Source: 1,2,3,4,6)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project(including but not limited to the X
general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,
2)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? X
(1,2)
10.Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the X
region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1,
2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan,specific plan X
or other land use plan?(Source:1,2)
11.Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance,or
applicable standards of other agencies? (2,3,4)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise X
levels?(Source: 2,3,4)
c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise X
levels in the project vicinity above existing
levels without the project? (2,3,4)
City of Dublin Page 26
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? (2,3,4)
e) For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport,would the project expose people residing
or working n the project area to excessive noise
levels? (2, 3,4)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private X
airstrip,would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 7)
12.Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X
either directly or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 1,2,3,4)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement X
housing elsewhere?(6)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement of X
housing elsewhere?(Source: 6)
13.Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities,need for new or physically altered
government facilities,the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service rations,
response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services? (Sources: 5)
Fire protection X
Police protection X
Schools X
Parks X
Other public facilities X
Solid Waste X
City of Dublin Page 27
Initial Study(Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
14.Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing X
neighborhood and regional parks or recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated (Source: 2,3,4)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or X
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 2,5)
15.Transportation and Traffic. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e.result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)?(2,3,4)
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a X
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (2,3,4)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(2,3,4)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses,such as farm X
equipment? (5)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (6) X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (6) X
g)Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs X
supporting alternative transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities)
(1,2)
City of Dublin Page 28
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
16.Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (2,3,4,5)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water X
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities,the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
(2,3)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm X
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?(3,4,5)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve X
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources,or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?(5)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater X
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?(5)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (5)
g) Comply with federal,state and local statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste?(5)
17.Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade X
the quality of the environment,substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number of or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
City of Dublin Page 29
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
b) Does the project have impacts that are X
individually limited,but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects,the effects of
other current projects and the effects of probable
future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human X
beings,either directly or indirectly?
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. Eastern General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan
2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan SEIR
3 Fredrich MND
4 Vargas MND
5. Discussion with City staff or service provider
6. Site Visit
7. Other Source
XVII. Earlier Analyses
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this
Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report(State
Clearinghouse No. 91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan of which this Project is a part. It was
certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. Following certification of the EIR,
the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts including
but not limited to: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural
gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a large number of mitigation measures which apply to
this Project and which would be applied to any development within the Project area.
Specific mitigation measures identified in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR for potential
impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study.
City of Dublin Page 30
Initial StudyfTassajara Highlands Project July 2014
This Initial Study relies on two other adopted Mitigated Negative Declarations for the
subject properties, as follows:
• Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration,
adopted by City Council Resolution No. 71-06 on May 16, 2006
("Fredrich Project MND.")
• Vargas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 57-07 on May 1, 2007 (Vargas Project MND).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to
identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of
the project which were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR the Mission Peak MND
or the Vargas Project MND and which would require additional environmental review.
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial StudylTassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
The project is set in an existing rural area of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to
urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin EIR, adopted in 1993.
The project site is characterized by moderate to steep sloping hill in the south-central
portion of the site that slopes to the north and west towards Tassajara Creek. Tassajara
Road forms the easterly boundary of the site and Moller Creek flows just south of the
site.
Two existing dwellings and a number of agricultural outbuildings are located on the
project site. A number of trees are also present on the site.
Surrounding land uses include the Tipper property to the north (currently owned by
the Singh family) that is a rural homestead. Land to the west is within a permanent
open space easement area within and adjacent to Tassajara Creek. The Dublin Ranch
West site (also known as the Wallis Ranch) lies west of the open space easement and has
been approved for residential development at a mix of densities and product types.
Moller Creek flows immediately to the south of the project site. Located to the east of
the project site is a residential project, known as the Fallon Crossing/Mission Peak that
is currently under construction by Standard Pacific consisting of 106 single-family units.
As a largely rural area, minimal light sources exist on the project site. Major light
sources include house and security lighting associated with the two existing residences.
Limited lighting exists to the east within the Fallon Crossing/Mission Peak
development, primarily security lighting.
Regulatory framework
Alameda Countv Scenic Route Element
In May, 1966, Alameda County adopted a Scenic Route Element of the County General
Plan. The Element identifies Tassajara Road as a Major Rural Road. The County's
General Plan Element has been incorporated by reference into the City of Dublin
General Plan.
The Scenic Route Element contains the following principles that apply to scenic route
rights-of-way:
• Design scenic routes to minimize grading in rights-of-way;
• Landscape rights-of-way of existing and proposed routes;
• Utilize scenic route identification signs.
City of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Dublin General Plan. The project area is included in the Eastern Dublin Extended
Planning Area. Implementing Policy C.2 of the General Plan states that "proposed site
grading and means of access will not disfigure ridgelands." Further, Implementing
Policy C. 5 requires development projects to be consistent with all applicable General
Plan and Specific Plan policies."
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan (EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 7,200 acres of
land in the eastern Dublin area. The Specific Plan includes a number of policies and
programs dealing with visual resources, including but not limited to protection of
ridgelines and ridgelands, scenic corridors, and hillside development.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin
adopted scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. This document identifies the site as
lying within Zone 5, the Fallon Village Open Space area. This corridor area is defined
primarily by lands adjacent to public rights-of-way, which should be park, rural
residential, open slopes or riparian drainage areas.
Previous CEOA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project.
These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract
development (IM 3.8/13) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires
future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the
character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and
maintaining views from major travel corridors.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open
space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B would remain
significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 would reduce the impact of obscuring distinctive
natural features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0-4.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of hillsides (IM 3.8/1)) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
require implemtation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading,
use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction,
using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside
to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0-5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of ridges (IM 3.8/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north
and east but are allowed on foreground hills, and would limit development in
locations where scenic views would be obscured or would extend above a
ridgetop.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/6.0 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of
watercourses (IM 3.8/G) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure
protects Tassajara Creek and other stream courses from unnecessary alteration or
disturbance, and adjoining development should be sited to maintain visual
access to stream corridors.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7/1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/1)
to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of
designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of
the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds.
Vargas Project MND
• Mitigation Measure 1 requires submittal of a visual survey and analysis with
future Stage 2 Planned Development applications to ensure that future
developments on this site comply with the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor
Policies; that views of the Tassajara Creek bank are protected; and, that
distinctive natural features on the site will be visible, once development is
complete.
• Mitigation Measure 2 requires that future developments retain as much of the
existing topographic pattern as possible.
No new aesthetic impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the Mission Peak
MND.
The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures
related to aesthetics set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Vargas Project MND.
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? No New Impact. The Eastern
Dublin EIR identifies that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
would result in a potentially significant impact (Impact 3.8/1), development on
the project area [i.e. the Eastern Dublin planning area] will alter the character of
existing scenic vistas and may obscure important sightlines). Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR reduced this
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
impact to a less-than-significant impact. This measure requires the City to
complete a visual assessment and guidelines for the Eastern Dublin area. This
has been completed.
The proposed project would include lowering the height of the existing small hill
on the site and raising the topographic grades of the northern and western
portions of the site to construct project improvements. The portion of the site
closest to Tassajara Creek would not be graded and would remain in its existing
natural area. The Tassajara Road frontage of the project site would be changed
from a generally undeveloped, natural area to a more urban streetscape, typical
of other housing developments south of the site along Tassajara Road. The
proposed streetscape appearance would include street trees, other ornamental
plantings and a noise barrier wall. The streetscape appearance would be similar
to other residential subdivisions located further south on Tassajara Road in the
Eastern Dublin area and generally consistent with previous development
approvals on the project site. This developed condition of the site was envisioned
in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Applicable mitigation measures contained in
the Eastern Dublin EIR, the visual policies contained in the EDSP and Vargas
project MND mitigation measures will apply to this project and no new or more
severe significant impacts would occur.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including those within state scenic highway? No
New Impact. The project site has extensive frontage along Tassajara Road, a
County and City-designated scenic highway. The project site adjacent to
Tassajara Road consists of natural and ornamental landscaping with no
significant stands of native trees, significant rock outcrops or other significant
scenic resources. Two single-family dwellings and a number of outbuildings
have also been constructed o the site. The appearance of the project frontage is
proposed to change from a largely natural condition to a more urban
environment with the addition of ornamental trees and landscaping and a noise
barrier wall. Proposed improvements adjacent along Tassajara Road have been
anticipated in the Mission Peak MND and Vargas MND as well as the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies that implementation of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment to add new residential, commercial
and similar urban uses in the then-vacant project area would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact to the Eastern Dublin planning area (see
EDSP Impact 3.8/B), including the Tassajara Highlands property. Mitigation
measures have been included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to minimize hillside
grading, although some amount of hillside grading would likely be needed to
accommodate proposed development improvements. The project developer will
also be required to comply with hillside grading requirements contained in the
Eastern Dublin EIR to minimize the visual effects of grading. No new or more
significant severe impacts would occur with respect to damage to scenic
resources than analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional review is
required.
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? No New
Impact. The proposed project includes the consideration of a development plan
on the Vargas and Fredrich properties. Aesthetic impacts would include
disturbance of existing vegetation and paving of undeveloped land to create
project roadways, grading of the area to create development areas and removal
of existing single-family residences and outbuildings on the site. The Eastern
Dublin EIR addressed the following potential impacts related to visual and
aesthetics impacts of adopting the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
Impact 3.8/B: Urban development of the project site will substantially alter
the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize Eastern Dublin
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified one measure to mitigate this impact
(Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0, "Implement the land use plan for the project site
which emphasizes retention of predominant natural features..."). Both the
approved and current development plans on the project site would adhere to this
mitigation measure by preserving on-site natural features (Moller Creek and
adjacent ridge-tops). However the Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that even with
adherence to this mitigation, alteration of rural and open space on the project site
would remain a potentially significant impact.
A potential visual impact would be grading and recontouring of the existing
hillside in the approximate center of the site which would be required to
facilitate development on the project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR addresses this
impact and included mitigation measures that reduced this impact to a less-than-
significant level. No new or more severe significant impacts have been identified
in this Initial Study with respect to degradation of the visual character of the site
and no further review is required.
d) Create light or glare? No New Impact. The project site contains minimal light
sources and construction of the proposed project would add additional light
sources in the form of streetlights along the proposed roadway as well as new
housing and yard lights. Properties adjacent to the project to the north and east
(Tipper and Moller Ranch) are primarily rural and/or contain special-status
biological wildlife species. City of Dublin development requirements will be
imposed as part of the normal and customary review process to restrict spillover
of unwanted light off of the project site. No new or more severe significant
impacts would result with respect to light and glare than has been previously
analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional review is required.
2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Environmental Setting
The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the project site as a combination of 'locally important
farmland" and "other lands," which lie adjacent to Tassajara Creek (see EDSP Figure
3.1-B). The Vargas MND states that this property was used for cattle grazing prior to the
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
1960's but this activity ceased when the residential dwelling was constructed during
this time period. Grazing also likely occurred on the Fredrich property as well, but has
also ceased. No other agricultural operations have been observed on the project site.
Figure 3.1-C contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR notes that a 5-acre portion of the
Vargas property was under a Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement in 1993, as
of the date of EIR publication. The EIR also stated that the Contract was non-renewed
and this contract has since expired. No other Williamson Act contracted properties exist
on the site.
A number of non-native trees exist on the site which have been planted as landscaping
for existing residences. No forests or major stands of trees have been observed on the
site, including Heritage Trees as defined in the Dublin Municipal Code (reference:
"Heritage Tree Letter, Vargas/Fredrich Property, Dublin CA" by HortScience, dated
July 3, 2014).
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified several potential impacts related
to agricultural resources. Impact IM 3.1/C stated that discontinuation of agricultural
uses would be an insignificant impact due to on-going urbanization trends in Dublin
and the Tri-Valley area. Impact 3.1/D identified a loss of lands of Farmlands of Local
Importance with approval and implementation of the General Plan and Specific Plan.
This was also noted as an insignificant impact. Impact 3.1/F stated that buildout of
Specific Plan land uses would have a significant and unavoidable impact on cumulative
loss of agricultural and open space lands. Finally, Impact IM 3.1/E noted indirect
impacts related to non-renewal of Williamson Act contracts. This impact was also
identified as an insignificant impact.
Fredrich Project MND. No impact to agricultural resources were identified in this
document.
Vargas Project MND. Agricultural resource were found to be less-than-significant in the
Vargas MND.
Project Impacts
a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? No New Impact. No
significant impacts were identified with respect to agricultural resources in
previous CEQA documents listed above. No new conditions have been identified
in this Initial Study with respect to conversion of prime farmland to a non-
agricultural use and residential development is proposed as assumed in the
EDEIR. No new or more severe significant impacts would result than were
analyzed in previous CEQA documents for this site and additional analysis is not
required.
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
The proposed project would continue to contribute to cumulative loss of
agricultural land and open space, which was identified as a significant and
unavoidable impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.1/F).
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No
New Impact. The City of Dublin has previously zoned the project site for
residential uses. No Williamson Act contracts presently exist on the site nor are
any agricultural operations on-going. No new or more severe significant impacts
would result than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for
the site. No additional analysis is required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? No
Impact. No forest land exists on the project site and no impact would result with
respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required.
e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to
a non forest use? No Impact. See item "d," above.
3. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin
distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin
is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills
surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends
northward into Contra Costa County.
Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These
include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 reduced impacts related to emission of construction
generated dust to a less-than-significant level by requiring construction projects
to water graded areas in the late morning and end of the day, cleanup mud and
dust onto adjacent streets on a daily basis, covering of haul trucks, avoiding
unnecessary idling of construction equipment, revegetating graded areas and
similar measures.
• Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related
to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11/B) but not to a less-
than-significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-site
equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even
with adherence to these mitigations, this impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study/Fassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emission from ROG
and NOx (IM 3.11/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures
require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures.
Many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to
adopted mitigations, IM 3.11/C would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts
related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11/E) but not to a less-than-
significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary
source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques
and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures,
stationary source emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
Fredrich Project MND. The Fredrich MND identified three supplemental air quality
mitigation measures in addition to EDSP mitigation measures:
• Mitigation Measure 14 required contractors to water or cover stockpiles of
debris, soil, sand or other materials that could be blown by the wind.
• Mitigation Measure 15 required contractors to sweep daily (preferably with
water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas of
construction sites
• Mitigation Measure 16 required contractors to install sandbags or other erosion
control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
Vargas Project MND. The Vargas MND included Mitigation Measures 14 through 16 as
contained in the Fredrich MND.
The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures
related to air quality.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No New
Impact. The amount of residential development proposed on the Tassajara
Highlands site would be less than previously considered and approved by the City
of Dublin. The current project includes up to 54 single-family dwellings. Previous
CEQA documents and land use approvals included the development of up to 68
dwellings on the Fredrich property and 33 dwellings on the Vargas property for a
total of up to 101 dwellings. Thus, the current project would represent a reduction
of up to 47 dwellings from currently approved plans. The number of approved
dwellings, 101 dwellings, was used in the preparation of the existing Regional
Clean Air Plan. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project
would not represent a substantial dwelling unit increase that would conflict with
or obstruct the regional clean air plan. No new or more severe significant impacts
would result than was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. No
additional analysis is required.
City of Dublin Page 39
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Related Criteria Air Pollutant Precursor Screening Level Sizes"
Qattp://www.baagmd.gov/-/media/Files/Plannin %20ar1d (,20Research/CEQA
/Draft BAAOMD CEQA Guidelines May 2010 Final ashx) establish the
minimum residential project sizes in terms of dwelling units that, below which, no
air quality impacts would occur. For single-family dwellings, the following
dwelling unit sizes are included in the screening level.
• Operation Criteria (NOX): 325 single-family dwellings
• GHG Screening: 56 single-family dwellings
a Construction (ROG): 114 single-family dwellings
Since the proposed project would contain 54 dwellings, below all of the District's
air quality screening levels, there would be no supplemental impact. There would
be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to violation of air
quality standards than has been previously analyzed. No additional review is
required.
The proposed Tassajara Highlands project would continue to contribute to the
cumulative impacts related to dust deposition, construction equipment emissions,
mobile source emissions and stationary source emissions, but to a somewhat lesser
degree than previously analyzed due to fewer dwellings proposed. These impact
(Impacts (IM/3.11/A, B,C and E contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR) were was
found to be significant and unavoidable when the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
was approved.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact.
The number of dwelling units included in the Tassajara Highlands fall below the
minimum screening thresholds for a significant air quality impact on a project and
cumulative basis and is less than half of the units considered in prior CEQA
reviews. The number of build-out dwelling units would also be less than currently
included in the Regional Clean Air Plan. So there would be no new or more severe
significant impacts with respect to cumulative air quality impacts than have been
previously analyzed and no additional review is needed.
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial significant pollutant concentrations or create
objectionable odors? No New Impact. No sensitive receptors, including but not
limited to schools or hospitals, exist or are planned within or adjacent to the
project area, so no impacts would result. Similarly, the site is not located adjacent
to any freeways or major highway corridors that would release significant air
emissions.
Since the proposed project does not include manufacturing or similar uses uses, no
objectionable odors would be created. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified this
impact as a potentially significant cumulative impact which could not be mitigated
to achieve the eight-fold reduction in stationary source emissions needed to meet
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
the insignificant threshold and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a
Statement of Overriding Consideration for this impact. No new severe significant
impacts are identified in this Initial Study beyond those identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and other CEQA documents ad no additional analysis is needed.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental Setting
The project site is located east of Tassajara Creek with Moller Creek, a tributary of
Tassajara Creek, flowing south of the site in a generally northeast-southwest direction
south of the project site.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the biological character of the Tassajara Highlands
site as "ruderal field" which contains a mix of native and non-native species, primarily
weedy species such as thistles, mustards and similar grasses (see EDSP EIR Figure 3.7-
A). Non-native, introduced trees and shrubs have been planted on the site as part of
existing residences. Based on a more recent biological analysis of the site ('Biological
Resources Analysis Report Addendum for the Tassajara Highlands residential
Development Project" prepared by Marylee Guinon LLC and Olberding Environmental
Inc, dated May 2014.) This report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial
Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department
during normal business hours.). The May 2014 biological report also notes that in
addition to ruderal grassland, the site contains creek channel and valley foothill
vegetation types. The report notes that 1.47 acres of the site have been developed with
dwellings, outbuildings and access roads.
The western and southern boundaries of the site are bordered by Tassajara Creek(west)
and Moller Creek (south). These area support riparian habitat, including but not limited
to stand of arroyo willows and similar plants.
Small area of wetlands and Waters of the US were identified on the Vargas property in
previous CEQA documents, including 0.483 acre of potential jurisdictional wetlands.
Existing grassland habitat on the site provides suitable habitat for a range of
amphibians, reptiles birds and mammals, although the quality of habitat has been
degraded by existing housing on the site, the presence of outbuildings and previous
cultivation of portions of the site. A number of these species are considered special-
status, protected species.
An analysis of existing trees on the site were conducted by a Hortscience dated January
2007 ("Updated Tree Report, Vargas/Fredrich Property. Dublin CA, January 2007." A
supplemental letter from Hortscience was submitted on July 3, 2014. These reports are
hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the
Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The
Hortscience arborist report found sixty (60) trees on the site, including a mix of non-
native, introduced trees near residences and a stand of native oak trees near Tassajara
Creek.
City of Dublin Page 41
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Regulatory framework
California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 1600. Streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation as
habitat for fish and other wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under
Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Any activity that will do one
or more of the following: 1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river,
stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or
bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other
material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a
river, stream, or lake; generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration
Agreement. The term "stream," which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the
California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: "a body of water that flows at least
periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish
or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow
that supports or has supported riparian vegetation" (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the
term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface
flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if
they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife.
Riparian is defined as, "on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream;" therefore, riparian
vegetation is defined as, "vegetation, which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is
dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself." Removal of riparian vegetation
also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps regulatory and permitting
authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters of the
United States." Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as
"waters of the United States, including territorial seas." Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the
Code of Federal Regulations defines the term "waters of the United States" as it applies
to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act. A
summary of this definition of "waters of the U.S." in 33 CFR 328.3 includes (1) waters
used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) "other waters" such as
intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5)
tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters.
Therefore, for purposes of determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act,
"navigable waters" as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as "waters of the
U.S." defined in the Code of Federal Regulations above.
The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are
as follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the
baseline; (b) Tidal waters of the U.S.: high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non-tidal
waters; (c) Non-tidal waters of the U.S.: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of
adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands: to the limit of the wetland.
Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be
jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Included in this category are some man-
City of Dublin Page 42
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
induced wetlands, which are areas that have developed at least some characteristics of
naturally occurring wetlands due to either intentional or incidental human activities.
Examples of man-induced wetlands may include, but are not limited to, irrigated
wetlands, impoundments, or drainage ditches excavated in uplands, dredged material
disposal areas, and depressions within construction areas.
In addition, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of
Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159
(2001)). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or
groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a "navigable waters of the U.S.",
and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341)
requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may
result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a
certification from the state in which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if
appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over
the affected waters at the point where the discharge originates or would originate, that
the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality
standards. A certification obtained for the construction of any facility must also pertain
to the subsequent operation of the facility. The responsibility for the protection of water
quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).
Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. The Federal Endangered Species Act
(FESA) of 1973 prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, permitting, or funding any
action that would jeopardize the continued existence of a plant or animal species listed
or a candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. If a federal
agency is involved with a proposed action or project that may adversely affect a listed
plant or animal, that agency must enter into consultation with the USFWS under
Section 7 (a) (2) of the FESA. Individuals, corporations, and state or local agencies with
proposed actions or projects that do not require authorizing, permitting, or funding
from a federal agency but that may result in the "take" of listed species or candidate
species are required to apply to the USFWS for a Section 10(a) incidental take permit.
The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the California Native Plant
Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in
1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for
plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align with
the FESA, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. The
State converted all animal species listed as "rare" under the FESA into the CESA as
threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal
framework for protection of California-listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant
and animal species. CDFW implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat
Data Analysis Branch maintain the CNDDB, a computerized inventory of information
on the general location and status of California's rarest plants, animals, and natural
communities. During the CEQA review process, CDFW is given the opportunity to
City of Dublin Page 43
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
comment on the potential of the proposed project to affect listed plants and animals.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. The project site is located in the East
Alameda County Conservation Strategy ("Conservation Strategy") Study Area. The
Conservation Strategy is intended to provide an effective framework to protect,
enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving
and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from
infrastructure and development projects. The City of Dublin is a partner in the
Conservation Strategy and uses the document to provide a baseline inventory of
biological resources and conservation priorities during project-level planning and
environmental permitting.
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program. The Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1996
as an implementation program required by the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan. The purpose of this document is to provide more
detailed requirements relating to hydrologic and biological conditions for individual
development projects proposed adjacent to Tassajara Creek and its tributaries,
specifically to ensure that Tassajara Creek restoration policies and programs contained
in the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan are fully implemented.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP
project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss
(IM 3.7/A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require
minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of
vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing
management plan by the City of Dublin.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation
removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0
requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) but not to a less-than-significant level.
These measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to
minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream
corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development
projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of
individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit
fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require
City of Dublin Page 44
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit
fox on project sites and restrictions on use of pesticides and herbicides.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0-22.0 reduced impacts related to the tri-colored
blackbird (IM 3.7/1) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require
preconstruction surveys for this species and protection of impacted habitat areas.
These measures also apply to burrowing owl and badger species.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/23.0-24.0 reduced impacts related to destruction of
Golden Eagle nesting sites (IM 3.7/J) to a less-than-significant level. These
measures require preconstruction surveys for this species and protection of
impacted habitat areas.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0 reduced impacts related to loss of Golden Eagle
foraging habitat (IM 3.7/K) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires
the identification of a Golden Eagle protection zone within the Eastern Dublin
planning area.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/26.0 reduced impacts related to Golden Eagle and other
raptor electrocution (IM 3.7/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure
requires undergrounding of electrical transmission facilities.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/20.0, 27.0 reduced impacts related to American badger
(IM 3.7/M, N) to a less-than-significant level. This measure mandates a
minimum buffer of 300 feet around burrowing owl nesting sites and American
badger breeding sites during the breeding season.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status
invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires
follow-on special surveys for these species during appropriate times of the year.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures
regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander,
western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp-
shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard.
Fredrich Project MND. This document includes the following applicable mitigation
measures:
• Mitigation Measure 17 required the completion of spring surveys for big tar
plant, large-flowered fiddleneck, diamond petaled California poppy, Congdon s
tarplant and round-leaved filaree prior to start of grading or construction.
Results of the surveys shall be provided to the City and California Department of
Fish & Wildlife prior to construction. If these species are found, they shall be
protected in place or safely relocated.
• Mitigation Measure 18 required that, if required by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service or the California Department of Fish and Game, surveys for California
City of Dublin Page 45
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Tiger Salamander, red-legged frog and western pond turtle shall be conducted at
least 60 days prior to start of construction.
• Mitigation Measure 19 required that if California tiger salamander species are
found on the site, a management plan shall be prepared and approved by
appropriate resources regulatory agencies to protect these species.
• Mitigation Measure 20 required the installation of a permanent herpetological
fence or barrier around the north, east and southern area of the site.
• Mitigation Measure 21 required California tiger salamander larval surveys be
conducted in the unnamed tributary for the proposed storm drain outfall to
determine the presence or absence of CTS larvae. If found, a CTS management
plan shall include methods to protect CTA at the outfall location.
• Mitigation Measure 22 required completion of a pre-construction survey for
nesting raptors prior to commencement of grading within 100 feet of a known
nesting tree. Vegetation and tree removal shall be conducted outside of the
raptor breeding season.
• Mitigation Measure 23 required completion of a pre-construction survey for
California horned lark and other ground-nesting birds prior to grading or
construction. If these species are found, a protective buffer shall be placed
around the nesting area until the young have fledged.
• Mitigation Measure 24 required completion of a pre-construction survey for
burrowing owls prior to grading or construction between September 31 and
January 31. If found, construction shall be limited within 150 feet of any
occupied nest. Owls may be removed from the site with necessary permits
issued by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife.
• Mitigation Measure 25 required a pre-construction survey during the nesting
season for burrowing owl and, if found, a minimum 250-foot wide buffer shall
be maintained around active nests during the breeding season.
• Mitigation Measure 26 required that if destruction of occupied burrowing owl
nests are proposed, a the developer shall prepare a strategy to replace burrows
by enhancing existing burrows or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio on
protected lands. The plan shall be approved by the California Department of
Fish & Wildlife.
• Mitigation Measure 30 required that all protection measures required by the
California Department of Fish & Wildlife and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service are
implemented and maintained.
• Mitigation Measure 31 required all construction personnel receive an
education training program regarding special-status species and protection
measures.
• Mitigation Measure 33 required all grading activity to occur during the dry
season to the extent practical.
City of Dublin Page 46
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• Mitigation Measure 34 required that any riparian habitat removed to be
replaced by replacement riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio subject to the approval
of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. As part of this measure, a
Riparian Habitat Management Plan shall be prepared, consistent with the
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Management Plan and Dublin Ranch
Tassajara Creek management Plan.
• Mitigation Measure 35 required the project developer to provide proof that all
necessary permits and approvals have been obtained from necessary
biological regulatory agencies prior to issuance of any City permits.
• Mitigation Measure 36 required the project to comply with the Eastern Dublin
San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan.
Vargas Project MND. The Vargas project MND contains the following mitigation
measures:
• Mitigation Measure 7 required a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors
prior to start of grading operations within 100 feet of any known trees with
nests. If active nests are found, a buffer shall be established around the tree
between January 1 and August 1, or until the young have fledged. Removal of
vegetation with a know raptor nest shall occur during the non-nesting season.
• Mitigation Measure 8 required the completion of a pre-construction survey for
Red-legged frog no more than 60 days prior to construction or grading.
Should this species be identified, a qualified biologist shall work with
appropriate regulatory agencies to determine additional measures to avoid
impacts to this specie.
• Mitigation Measure 9 required the completion of a pre-construction survey for
California Tiger Salamander no more than 60 days prior to construction or
grading. Should this species be identified, a qualified biologist shall work
with appropriate regulatory agencies to determine additional measures to
avoid impacts to this specie.
• Mitigation Measure 10 required that if California Tiger Salamander are found
on the site, a California Tiger Salamander management plan is to be prepared
and approved by appropriate biological regulatory agencies prior to start of
construction. At minimum, the management plan shall include installation of
barrier fences, a trapping and relocation plan, on-site presence of a qualified
biologist during construction and limiting grading and vegetation clearance
within a 750-foot radius of California Tiger Salamander breeding and
migration areas.
• Mitigation Measure 11 required the installation of a permanent herpetological
fence or barrier around the north, east and southern area of the residential
portion of the site.
• Mitigation Measure 12 required compliance with the Eastern Dublin San
Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan.
• Mitigation Measure 13 required the completion of a pre-construction survey
for Southwestern pond turtle along the Tassajara Creek corridor. If found on
City of Dublin Page 47
Initial StudylTassajara Highlands Project July 2014
site, turtles shall be relocated by a qualified biologist and the site blocked from
future occupancy by turtles.
• Mitigation Measure 14 required the completion of a pre-construction survey
for burrowing owls if ground disturbance is to occur between September 1
and January 31. If no overwintering birds are present, burrows may be
removed prior to construction. If owls must be removed during this period
passive relocation measures shall be prepared and implemented based on
current biological regulatory guidelines prior to construction.
• Mitigation Measure 15 required that if construction is scheduled during the
burrowing owl nesting season (Feb. 1 —Sept. 1), a pre-construction survey
shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance. A minimum
250-foot wide buffer shall be maintained during the breeding season around
active nests to avoid direct take of individuals.
• Mitigation Measure 16 required that if occupied owl burrows are destroyed
either during the breeding or non-breeding season, a strategy shall be
developed and implemented to replace such destroyed burrows by enhancing
existing burrows or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio on nearby lands
and shall include permanent protection of a minimum of 6.5 acres of
burrowing owl habitat per pair or unpaired resident owls agencies to
determine additional measures to avoid impacts to this specie.
• Mitigation Measure 17 required the completion of a pre-construction surveys
for special-status plant species prior to ground disturbance. Any rare plants
shall be plotted and biological regulatory agencies notified of their presence.
Special-status plants shall be protected from site construction or relocated to
an alternative site as required by the resource agency.
• Mitigation Measure 18 required the approval of a formal wetland delineation
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to issuance of building permits
or a grading permit.
• Mitigation Measure 19 required the project developer to retain a qualified
biologist to develop a plant to mitigate impacts to 0.397 acre of wetlands at a
2:1 ratio and 0.086 acre of waters of the United States at a 1:1 ratio.
Appropriate methods of mitigation include creation of replacement wetlands
or other methods as approved by the Corps of Engineers.
• Mitigation Measure 20 required that construction and grading activities
related to the trail system and grading activities located within the 100 foot
creek setback shall be protected during construction of the trail and water
quality pond and shall not occur during the wet season (Oct. 1-April 15).
• Mitigation Measure 21 required that prior to issuance of a building or grading
permit, a creek and riparian resources protection plan shall be prepared for
construction of a trail and water quality pond. At minimum, the plan shall
include construction fencing, project schedule and erosion control measures.
The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource
mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for the site.
City of Dublin Page 48
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? No
New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR, Vargas and Fredrich MNDs all
document the presence of special-status plant and wildlife species on the
project site. Numerous mitigation measures are included in these various
documents to reduce impacts to candidate, sensitive and special-status species
to a less-than significant level. These are listed above. As noted above, the
project site was analyzed in multiple previous CEQA documents, each with
slightly different mitigation requirements. To provide a consistent method of
monitoring biological mitigation measures, a recommended condition of
project approval is to have a qualified biologist prepare a Comprehensive
Biological Resources Management Plan to compile the various biological
mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA documents in a logical
manner. Completion of this Plan, prior to issuance of a grading permit, will
ensure that all previous applicable measures are logically complied to eliminate
overlap and duplication and be monitored at the appropriate stage of the
proposed project. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with
respect to candidate, sensitive or special-status species would occur than have
been analyzed in the three previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis
is required.
The proposed project would continue to contribute to cumulative loss or
degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, which was identified as a
significant and unavoidable impact (IM 3.7/C) in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands?
Mo New Impact. Wetlands and waters of the United States have been identified
on the project site and a wetland delineation was approved by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers on July 26, 2013. An application for a water quality
certification has been submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board
was submitted in early 2014 and approval is pending. Also, a Streambed
Alteration Agreement application has been filed with the California Department
of Fish & Wildlife and approval is pending.
Mitigation Measures have been included in the previously adopted CEQA
documents to reduce such impacts to a less-than-significant level. The
Comprehensive Biological Resources Management Plan shall also address
impacts and previous mitigation measures addressing riparian habitat and
wetlands. No new or more severe significant impacts would occur than have
been previously analyzed with respect to this topic. No additional analysis is
required.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. Mitigation
measures contained in previous CEQA documents prepared to analyze previous
development applications on the site contain mitigation measures that reduced
this impact to a less-than-significant level. However, since there have been
several previous CEQA documents adopted and/or certified for the site, a
City of Dublin Page 49
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
recommended condition of project approval will require that adopted mitigation
measures from previous CEQA documents dealing with interference of fish or
wildlife movement be included in the Comprehensive Biological Resources
Management Plan to eliminate duplication and overlap. No new or more severe
significant impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed with
respect to potential interference with fish or wildlife movement and no
additional analysis is required.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? No New
Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project could affect native
oak trees and other trees species on the site. The City of Dublin affords Heritage
Tree status to any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye, or sycamore tree
with a main trunk of at least twenty-four inches in diameter when measured at
fifty-two inches above the natural grade; trees required for preservation under an
approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development
review, or subdivision map. The HortScience arborist report did not identify the
presence of any heritage trees on the site.
The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy
(EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as
guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private
development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The
Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation
for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and
other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan
nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to
provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure
that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. No HCP or NCCP was
identified in the prior CEQA documents and none applies at present. There would
therefore be no new or significantly more severe impacts with respect to this topic
than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 Transit Center EIR.
No new mitigation measures are required.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
Potentially historic structures. Two single-family dwellings exist on the site, which appear
to date from the early to mid-1960's. The dwellings are typical of mid-century modern
design and construction and do not qualify as unique historic structures. A number of
smaller agricultural outbuildings have also been built on the site and are of the same
age as the primary dwellings. Similar to the primary dwellings, none of these buildings
are considered historic. The confirmation of no historic status for the Vargas house was
confirmed by a cultural resource investigation of the Vargas property by the firm of
Basin Research Associates dated July 2006 and included in the Vargas MND document.
City of Dublin Page 50
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify any significant historic structures on the project
site.
Underground cultural resources. The Basin Research Associates cultural survey in 2006
did not identify the presence of underground cultural resources on the Vargas property
portion of the site.
A cultural resources records search was conducted by the Northwest Information
Center for the realignment of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road adjacent to the Fredrich
property in 2002. No significant resources were identified in the vicinity of this Eastern
Dublin, although the records search noted the presence of other significant resources
adjacent to Tassajara Creek to the south, near the I-580 freeway. These resources are not
located on the project site.
Native American resources. The Native American Heritage Commission review of the
Sacred Lands File did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources
within the project area. No former Native American villages, traditional use of the area
or contemporary use of the area have been identified on or adjacent to the project site.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP
project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or
destruction of identified prehistoric resources (IM 3.9/A) to a less-than-
significant level. These mitigations mandate a program of mechanical and/or
hand subsurface testing for the presence or absence of midden deposits,
recordation of identified midden sites, collection and/or testing of resources and
development of a site-specific protection program for prehistoric sites.
• Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or
destruction of unidentified prehistoric resources (IM 3.913) to a less-than-
significant level.
• Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0-12.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or
destruction of identified historic resources (IM 3.9/C) to a less-than-significant
level. These measures would include preparing site-specific archival research for
individual resources, encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources, recordation
of historic sites on local state and federal registers, as appropriate and
development of preservation programs for significant resources.
Fredrich Project MND. The Fredrich MND referenced previous cultural resource impacts
and mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Vargas Project MND. The Vargas MND contained one mitigation measure that reduced
cultural resources on the Vargas site to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure
City of Dublin Page 51
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
30 required implementation of a contingency plan if an unrecorded resource is found
during project construction. Work shall be halted in the vicinity of the site until a
qualified archeologist can inspect the find and, if necessary, develop and implement a
testing and recovery plan.
The proposed project will be required to comply with the above cultural resource
mitigation measures.
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? No New Impact. No
historic resources have been identified in the project area in both the Eastern
Dublin EIR and the supplemental cultural resources survey completed for the
Vargas property by Basin Research Associates in July 2006. Basin staff found that
the existing dwellings on the Vargas property did not qualify for inclusion on the
California Register of Historic Places and were therefore, not considered historic
resources. The existing dwelling on the Fredrich property is of approximately the
same age and similarly does not qualify as a significant resource. No new or
more severe supplemental impacts have therefore been identified for the
proposed project than were disclosed in previous CEQA documents and no
additional analysis is required.
b,c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological
resources? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a remote but
potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site
grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or
paleontological resources on development sites. The Eastern Dublin EIR
categorized these resources as pre-historic cultural resources. Three potential
pre-historic sites were identified by the EIR near the Tassajara Highlands site .
The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all pre-historic sites would be disturbed or
altered in some manner. This potential impact was identified and addressed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A) and mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through
3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 —3.9-7) that require subsurface testing for archeological
resources; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a
protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Section
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5-0 and 3.9/6.Q,
described above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any
previously unidentified pre-historic or historic resources and would apply to the
project as may be appropriate.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6-24 and 6-25)
requiring research of archaeological resources prior to construction and
determination of the significance and extent of any resources uncovered during
grading and construction.
Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to cultural
resources have been identified that have been previously analyzed in other
CEQA documents for the project area and no additional analysis is required.
City of Dublin Page 52
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? No
New Impact. Existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, the Fredrich MND and the Vargas MND reduced impacts to
human remains to a less-than-significant level. No new or more severe
significant impacts with respect to cultural impacts are anticipated beyond those
previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required.
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Setting
Geology and soils. This section is based on a preliminary geotechnical investigation
completed by ENGEO on July 14, 2006 ("Preliminary Geological and Geotechnical
Findings, Fredrich and Vargas Properties") that was updated by ENGEO in July 2012
("Geotechnic Update.") These reports are hereby incorporated by reference into this
Initial Study. The reports are available for review at the Dublin Community
Development Department during normal business hours.
Landslide potential. The ENGEO report, as updated in 2012, identified that no historic
landslides have been mapped on the project site or were observed on the site by
ENGEO professional staff.
Seismic hazard. The project area does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). Major active faults in the region that influence
earthquake susceptibility include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville
Faults. The site is subject to strong ground shaking in the event of seismic activity,
consistent with all of the Bay area.
Tsunami and seiche hazards. The ENGEO reports found that the risk of damage to future
improvements on the site from a tsunami or seiche is low.
Previous CEOA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General
Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of
earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6/13) but not to a less-than-significant level.
This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure
facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects
of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/C) to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of
unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of
City of Dublin Page 53
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered
fill, and design of structures to account of potential soil failure.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial
alteration to landforms to a less-than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations
require minimal grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of
homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM
3.6/H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation
of site-specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of
moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope
stability (IM 3.6/1) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate
formulation of use of site-specific designs based on follow-on geotechnical
reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on
downslopes of unstable soils, removal/reconstruction of potentially unstable
slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage
improvements.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope
stability (IM 3.6/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures include
developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associate
cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building
codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and
minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas
and on-going maintenance of slope drainage areas.
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term
construction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less-than-
significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid
the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control
measures.
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long-term erosion and
sedimentation (IM 3.6/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure includes
installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects,
including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded
areas and similar measures.
Fredrich Project MND. No supplemental impacts or mitigation measures were identified
in this MND.
Vargas Project MND. This document contains Mitigation Measure 23, that required
removal of unstable fill material from portion of the Vargas site during site preparation
and grading as required by the project geotechnical report.
City of Dublin Page 54
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable soil, geologic and
seismic mitigation measures.
Project Impacts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking,ground failure, or
landslides? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary
and secondary effects of ground-shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be
potentially significant impacts. With implementation of Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0, the primary effects of ground-shaking are reduced
but not to a less-than-significant level by using modern seismic design for
resistance to lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for
structure failure, major structural damage and loss of life.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of ground-shaking on
proposed project improvements but not to a less-than-significant level. Impact
3.6/13 found that impacts related to seismic action in the Eastern Dublin area
could damage structures and infrastructure and would be significant and
unavoidable. This finding also applied to the proposed Tassajara Highlands
project as well.
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 23 contained in the Vargas MND by the
project developer will ensure that infrastructure facilities built on the project site
will comply with generally recognized seismic safety standards so that effects
due to ground shaking and ground failure will be less-than-significant. Overall,
no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with respect to ground
rupture, ground shaking, ground failure or landslides than have been previously
analyzed. No additional analysis is required.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact.
Construction of the proposed project improvements on the Tassajara Highlands
site would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface
runoff and infiltration. These actions could result in a short-term increase in
erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. Long-term impacts
could result from modification of the ground-surface and removal of existing
vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/L). With implementation of
Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
re-stated above, both of these impacts would be less-than-significant.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6-43), which
requires that new development be designed to provide effective control of soil
erosion as a result of construction activities. This policy will be applied to the
Tassajara Highlands project.
The project includes residential development of the type and in the location
assumed in the prior CEQA documents. The project also includes the design-
level geotechnical investigation required by the previously adopted mitigations
City of Dublin Page 55
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
and will implement their project-specific recommendations. With adherence to
previous mitigation measures, there would be no new or more severe significant
impacts than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for this
site. No further analysis is required.
c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. Consistent with
Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0, the project developer has
commissioned a preliminary geotechnical investigation by ENGEO as updated in
2012. The report did not identify impacts related to landslide hazard on the site,
although the issue of shrink-swell potential or lateral spreading was not
addressed in this report. The ENGEO report and follow-on construction-level
reports will be required, pursuant to standard City development requirements,
to contain detailed design and construction methods to minimize impacts from
shrink-swell and/or lateral spreading potential for future site improvements
should these conditions be found on the site. These measures include special
foundations designed to resist the effects of shrink-swell potential and other
recommendations. With adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and the findings of the construction-level
geotechnical report, no new or more severe significant impacts have been
identified related to lateral spreading, liquefaction and other soil hazards than
have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is
needed.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? No
New Impact. Proposed residences on the site would be connected to sanitary
sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no new or more severe impacts
with regard to septic systems.
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Setting
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and follow-on CEQA documents,
the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more
prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. On March 18,
2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth
requirements for the analysis of greenhouse gasses. The topic of the project's
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2006 and 2007 MNDs. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and
prior MNDs have already been approved, the determination of whether greenhouse
gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed
by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166
and Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not
required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of
substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the
time the previous EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).)
Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known
City of Dublin Page 56
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR and the prior MNDs.
The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to these
CEQA reviews. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was
established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate
change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The
studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change were extensively discussed and
analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action
Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about
potential environmental impacts. In 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order # S-03-
05 establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in California. AB 32 was
adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was
known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993 and the
adoption of the prior MNDs in 2006 and 2007. Under CEQA standards, it is not new
information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No
supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required
under CEQA.
Project Impacts
a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed above, no additional
environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166.
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(This section of the Initial Study is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
prepared by ENGEO in September 2012 (" Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,
Dublin Highlands, 7020 & 6960 Tassajara Road, Dublin California"). This document is
incorporated into this Initial Study by reference and is available for review at the Dublin
Community Development Department during normal business hours.
Environmental Setting
The Phase I analysis prepared by ENGEO did not identify any recognized
environmental conditions on the project site. However, the report recommended that
removal of household debris on the site be supervised by an environmental professional
and that standard testing be completed for structures to be removed for asbestos
containing materials or lead-based paint. These recommendations will be made
conditions of project approval.
Previous CEQA documents
Fredrich Project MND. This document re-states Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures
for fire hazard reduction (Mitigation Measures 3.4/11.0 and 12.0).
Vargas Project MND. The Vargas MND contains Mitigation Measure 24, which reduced
impacts related to wildfire hazard by requiring development on the Vargas site to be
City of Dublin Page 57
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
designed in a manner consistent with the City's Wildfire Management Plan. Future
dwellings are also required to include automatic sprinklers as well as being in
compliance with Alameda County Fire Department rules and regulations, City of
Dublin standards and the California Fire Code.
Project Impacts
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials? No New Impact. There would be no impact
with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the
proposed project involves construction of a residential development on the Vargas
and Fredrich properties. Residential development was assumed in prior CEQA
documents for the two properties encompassing the project site. There would be
no use, storage or transport of significant quantities of hazardous materials
associated with the proposed development. Conditions of project approval require
that removal of existing household waste materials on the site be monitored by a
qualified professional and that normal and customary testing be performed for
lead based paint and asbestos building materials prior to demolition of existing on-
site buildings. No new or more severe impacts would therefore occur on the site
than have been previously analyzed and no new analysis is required.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? No New Impact. Based on the discussion in subsection "a," above, no
new impacts are anticipated with respect to the release of hazardous materials
than were analyzed in the Vargas and Fredrich CEQA documents and no new
analysis is required.
c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No
Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have no
impact with regard to this topic, since no schools exist or are planned near the
project area. No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to emission or
handing of hazardous materials within one-quarter of an existing or planned
school. No additional analysis is required.
d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. No properties
comprising the project area are listed on the State of California Department of
Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of July 22, 2013. There
is therefore no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to this topic
than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No
New Impact. The project site is not located near a public or private airport, airfield
or airstrip. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated regarding
airport safety issues than were discussed in the Vargas and Fredrich CEQA
documents. No additional analysis is required.
City of Dublin Page 58
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. The proposed
project would include the construction of a residential project on private land. No
emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be
blocked. No new or more severe significant impacts would result than have been
previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. No
New Impact. The project area is located in a partially undeveloped area with
residential development approved to the east (Moller Ranch and Mission Peak)
and far west (Dublin Ranch West). However, significant natural areas remain to
the near west (Tassajara Creek and adjacent open space easement area) and south
(Moller Creek). The development/open space interface was addressed in prior
CEQA reviews. Adherence to mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA
documents will reduce impacts to wildland fire risk to a less-than-significant level.
There is no new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed. No
additional analysis is required.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
Local surface water. The project site is located within the Alameda Creek watershed
which drains to the San Francisco Bay via the Arroyo Del Valle and Arroyo de la
Laguna. Moller Creek, a tributary of Tassajara Creek, flows in a northeast-southwest
direction through the project area to Tassajara Creek to the west. The main course of
Tassajara Creek flows in a north-south direction west of the site.
Existing site conditions. A majority of the site is undeveloped. Developed areas include
two single-family dwellings, outbuildings and driveways.
The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance
of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County.
Surface water quality.Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which
controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources.
In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in
November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of
stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and
construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin
is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated
effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San
Francisco Bay.
City of Dublin Page 59
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Flooding. Upland portions of the site, not located near existing creeks, lie outside of a
100-year flood hazard area (Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 03626G).
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the
General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48 reduced impacts related potential flooding (IM
3.5/Y) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require new
storm drainage facilities as part of new development, requires developers to
prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects and requires new
flood control facilities to alleviate downstream flooding potential.
• Mitigation Measures 3-5/51.0 to 55.0 reduced impacts related to non-point
source pollution (IM 3.5/AA) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation
measures mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as part
of development projects and that the City should develop community-based
programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non-point source
pollution. These mitigations also require all development to meet the
requirements of the City's Best Management Practices, the City's NPDES permit
and the County's Urban Runoff Clean Water Program to mitigate stormwater
pollution.
Fredrich Project MND. This document includes Mitigation Measure 66 that requires the
project developer to submit a preliminary creek alignment plan for Tassajara Creek
prior to approval of the project by the City.
Vargas Project MND. The adopted MND contains the following mitigation measures.
• Mitigation Measure 25 required the project developer to prepare a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that lists Best Management Practices to
reduce construction and post-construction activities to a less-than-significant
level. Specific BMPs may include revegetation of graded areas, use of bio-filters
and similar methods. The SWPPP shall conform to Regional Water Board and
City of Dublin standards. A Notice of Intent shall also be obtained by the
applicant from the State Water Resources Control Board.
• Mitigation Measure 26 required the project developer to submit a drainage and
hydrology study to the Dublin Public Works Department. The report shall
identify historic stormwater flows from the site, estimated increases in
stormwater flow and the ability of downstream facilities to accommodate
additional flows. The report shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading
permit and shall also document the project's fair share contribution to fund any
needed downstream drainage system improvements.
City of Dublin Page 60
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• Mitigation Measure 27 required that the siting of storm drainage improvements
be consistent with Resource Management Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan.
The proposed project shall adhere to all of the applicable above previous mitigation
measures.
Project Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact.
Approval and construction of the proposed development project would add
impervious surfaces to the essentially undeveloped site that would increase the
amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. Mitigation
Measure 3.5/51.0 contained in the EDSP EIR requires each project developer to
prepare and submit a water quality investigation. Mitigation Measure 25 contained
in the Vargas MND also requires the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan to minimize release of water pollutants that would exceed water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Adherence to the existing
mitigation measures to minimize water pollution and current standard City of
Dublin water quality requirements will ensure that no new or more severe
significant impacts with respect to water quality violations or wastewater
discharges would result than have been previously analyzed. No additional
analysis is required.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New
Impact. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to
depletion of groundwater resources than have been analyzed in previous CEQA
documents. Although 54 new dwellings are proposed (two dwellings currently
exist) on the site, much of the site would remain as open space in terms of private
yards and an open space area, that would allow recharge of the underground
aquifer. Also, stormwater runoff from the site would be directed to an on-site
stormwater basin that would allow recharge of the aquifer in a location near
Moller Creek and Tassajara Creek.
Also, the proposed water source for this project would rely on surface water
supplies from DSRSD and not local groundwater supplies. The project site is not
identified as a groundwater recharge area in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with respect to
this topic than has been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. No
additional analysis is required.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. New impervious surfaces would
be added to the Tassajara Highlands project site to accommodate new dwellings,
roadways, driveways, pathways and similar surfaces. Existing drainage patterns
may be slightly modified based on proposed development, similar to the existing
approved Development Plan. However adherence to Mitigation Measure 46.0
contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Mitigation Measures 25 and 26 contained
in the Vargas MND would reduce changed drainage patterns to a less-than-
City of Dublin Page 61
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
significant level. No new or more severe significant impacts would result with
respect to changed drainage patterns than have been previously analyzed and no
new analysis is needed.
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site?
No New Impact. No impacts or significant changes to drainage patterns are
anticipated as part of the Tassajara Highlands project. Based on the latest ENGEO
hydrology report, cited above, the proposed upland development area lies outside
of a FEMA 100-year flood hazard area. No new or more severe significant impacts
are anticipated than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is
required.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. Adherence to Eastern Dublin
EIR Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 will reduce drainage and pollution impacts
to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require new storm
drainage facilities as part of new development and requires developers to prepare
storm drain plans for individual development projects such as the Tassajara
Highlands project. Mitigation Measure 26 also requires completion of a drainage
and hydrology study to identify any drainage system deficiencies and funding of
system upgrades. Based upon this analysis, the project includes hydromodification
ponds in the southern portion of the site to ensure that the local and regional
drainage system would not be exceeded. Other water quality features have been
proposed for the project, as previously described. No new or more severe
significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study regarding increases in
stormwater runoff than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis
is required.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? No New Impact. This potential issue and has
been addressed above in items "a" and "e." There are no new or more severe
significant impacts beyond those identified in prior CEQA reviews and no
additional analysis is required.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map? No New Impact. The development portion of the Tassajara Highlands
project is not located within a 100-year flood plain, as documented in the ENGEO
hydrology report. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated than
have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required.
h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood
flow, including dam failures? No New Impact. Refer to item "g," above.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. The project site
is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be
impacted by a tsunami or seiche. No new or more severe significant impacts
would therefore result with respect to seiches, tsunamis or mudflows than have
been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is needed.
City of Dublin Page 62
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
10. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Setting
The project site consists of a combination of flatter areas to the north and west with a
moderate to steep hill in the eastern and central portion of the site. Two single-family
dwellings and a number of agricultural outbuildings have also been constructed.
Surrounding uses include a combination of developed and undeveloped properties
within the Eastern Dublin Planning area. Many of the surrounding properties have
been approved for development, including the Dublin Ranch West project, the Moller
Ranch project and the Mission Peak residential project, currently under construction.
Tassajara and Moller Creeks lie immediately south and west of the project site.
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The project site is
located within a distinct area, between Tassajara Road to the east and Tassajara
Creek to the west. All of the site would either be developed with dwellings and
related improvements or be reserved for permanent open spaces. Therefore, no
existing, established community would be physically divided. No new or more
severe significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been
previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? No New Impact.
Although amendments have been requested to the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to reduce the amount of development on the property (101
dwellings approved v. 54 dwellings proposed), the number of dwellings would be
substantially less with the proposed project than under existing General Plan and
Specific Plan land use designations. No changes are proposed to any regulation
affecting environmental protection. No new or more severe significant impacts are
anticipated with regard to land use regulations than have been previously
analyzed in other applicable CEQA documents and no additional analysis is
required.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No
New Impact. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County
Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the
Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public
projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a
resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to
permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land
development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is
neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan,
but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and
permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective
manner. The project site has never been within an HCP or NCCP area. There
would therefore be no new or significantly more severe significant impacts than
City of Dublin Page 63
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and other CEQA documents
prepared for this site and no additional analysis is needed.
11. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
The project site contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Eastern
Dublin EIR.
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No
New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of
minerals exist in the project area, so no new or more severe significant impacts
would occur than have been previously analyzed.
12. Noise
Environmental Setting
The City's Noise Element of the General Plan defines "noise" as a sound or series of
sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise
is primarily a concern with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences,
schools, churches and hospitals. Although noise is controlled around commercial,
industrial and recreation uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum
recommended levels for these uses.
Regulatory Setting
The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise
in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and
noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway.
The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use
type.
Table 1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+
Lodging Facilities 60 or less 61-80 71-80 Over 80
Schools,churches, 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80
nursing homes
Neighborhood 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70
arks
Office/Retail 70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75 --
Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1, 2012
City of Dublin Page 64
July 2014
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project
The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential
dwellings.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that major noise sources within
Eastern Dublin include traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter overflights from
Camp Parks RFTA, west of Tassajara Road, noise generated by development of land
uses under the Specific Plan and General Plan and construction noise. No specific
significant future noise sources are identified on the project site.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated
noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 reduced impacts related to exposure of proposed
housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10/A) to a less-than-significant level.
This mitigation measure require that all future development projects within a
future CNEL 60 noise contour have an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that
future dwelling units meet City interior and exterior noise exposure levels.
• Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 reduced impacts related to construction
noise (IM 10/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
require developers to submit construction noise management plans and to limit
hours of construction operations among other things.
Fredrich Project MND. The Fredrich project MND contains Mitigation Measure 69 that
required preparation of a noise study prior to the approval of a Planned Development
Phase 2 Development Plan to show compliance with interior and exterior noise
standards. The noise study shall evaluate noise impacts of traffic on Tassajara Road on
the project as well as noise generated by air conditioners, pool pumps and other
mechanical equipment. Sound barriers and other noise measures included in the noise
study shall be incorporated into improvement plans and an acoustical engineer shall
sign construction plans.
Vargas Project MND. This document contains Mitigation Measure 28 that required all
Stage 2 and Site Development Review plans to show noise barriers, berms or solid
fencing to control noise in outdoor spaces (including rear and side yards) to comply
with applicable noise standards. A noise sturdy shall be prepared and submitted with
construction plans prior to a building permit. The report shall evaluate the effects of
traffic noise on Tassajara Road on project residences and include methods to ensure that
interior noise levels shall be 45 bBA or less.
The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation
measures identified above.
City of Dublin Page 65
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Project Impacts
a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? No New Impact. As
analyzed in previous CEQA documents affecting the site, development of
proposed residential land uses on the project site would increase noise on the
project site and future residents would be subject to traffic noise along Tassajara
Road. The project includes construction of a noise barrier wall adjacent to
Tassajara Road to reduce traffic noise on future residential lots to meet City
exterior noise exposure standards. A recommended condition of approval is to
have an acoustic specialist ensure that the final height of the wall will be sufficient
to reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels within private yard areas based on the
final grading plan and building/yard topographic elevations. Adherence to
Eastern Dublin EIR noise mitigation measures, mitigation measures contained in
the Fredrich and Vargas MNDs, noise standards in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and the City noise ordinance will reduce noise to a less-than-significant level.
No new or more severe significant noise impacts have been identified than have
previously analyzed. No additional analysis is needed.
The project would contribute to cumulative noise conditions identified as Impact
3.10/B in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is exposure of existing residences to
future roadway noise. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. Also, EDSP EIR Impact 3.10/1), exposure of proposed
residential development to noise from future military training activities at Parks
RFTA, was found to be significant and unavoidable.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No
New Impact. The proposed project would not include construction or operational
elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels to nearby
residents (source: Mike O'Hara, applicant representative, 8/8/13). No new or
more significant severe impacts would result with respect to vibration or
groundborne vibration than was analyzed in previous CEQA documents on the
project site and no additional analysis is needed.
c) Substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? No New Impact. Increased
levels of permanent noise on the project that would occur based on project
construction would be reduced to a less-than significant level through adherence
to applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, mitigation
measures contained in other CEQA documents prepared for previous projects on
the same site and the Dublin Noise Ordinance. No new or more severe significant
impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously
analyzed and no additional analysis is needed.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? No New Impact. Increased levels of short-term
construction noise generated on the project site would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level through adherence to applicable mitigation measures contained in
the Eastern Dublin EIR, other CEQA documents and the Dublin Noise Ordinance.
These measures require project developers to limit hours of construction activity
City of Dublin Page 66
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
and to prepare construction noise management plans. No new or more severe
significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been
previously analyzed and no additional analysis is needed.
e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to
excessive noise levels? No New Impact. No portions of the Tassajara Highlands site
are located within the airport referral area for Livermore Municipal Airport. No
new or more severe significant impacts are therefore anticipated in terms of this
topic than was previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional
analysis is needed.
13. Population and Housing
Environmental Setting
The project area currently contains two single-family dwellings and unoccupied
outbuildings, but is primarily vacant.
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New
Impact. Approval of the proposed project would not induce substantial additional
population growth in the Eastern Dublin area, since development on the affected
properties has long been envisioned in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
Dublin General Plan since its adoption in 1993. Approval of the proposed project
would result in fewer dwellings being constructed than originally anticipated in
the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (101 units currently
approved v. 54 proposed) but would be generally the same type of development as
assumed in previous CEQA documents. No new or more severe significant
impacts than were previously analyzed are therefore anticipated with respect to
this topic and no additional analysis is required.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? No
New Impact. The two existing dwellings currently on the site would be removed
to accommodate proposed development on the property, as assumed in previous
CEQA documents for the site. This would not be a substantial number of residents
and no impact would result. No new or more severe significant impacts than were
previously analyzed are therefore anticipated with respect housing displacement
and no additional analysis is needed.
14. Public Services
Environmental Settin&
The following provide essential services to the community:
City of Dublin Page 67
Initial StudylTassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County
Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency
medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and
hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 18 at 4800 Fallon
Road.
• Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Alameda
County Sheriff under contact to the City of Dublin.
• Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational
services for properties on the project site.
• Library Services: Alameda County Library service.
• Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities
are the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR
addressing fire and police protection include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-
front costs of capital fire improvements.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations on
project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the
requirements of development approval.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval, that an
assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in place that will
provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/open space interface.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: The City shall work with the Fire Department and
qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project area.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise
beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for police
protection service in Eastern Dublin.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0-5.0: Incorporate into the requirements of project
approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect traffic
safety and crime prevention.
Fredrich Project MND. This document contained he following mitigation measures
addressing public service impacts:
City of Dublin Page 68
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• Mitigation Measure 70 required project compliance with the City of Dublin Wildfire
Management Plan and installation of automatic fire sprinklers in each residence.
• Mitigation Measure 71 required payment of the City Fire Protection Fee prior to
issuance of building permits.
No significant public service impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the
Vargas Project MND.
The project will be required to comply with the above mitigation measures.
Project Impacts
a) Fire protection? No New Impact. As reflected in previous CEQA documents
affecting the project site, approval and implementation of the proposed project
would increase the number of fire and emergency medical calls for service that
would need to be responded to by the Alameda County Fire Department, the City
of Dublin's contract fire department, as a result of a greater number of dwellings
on the project site. The proposed project is required to adhere to mitigation
measures, including payment of public facility impact fees to assist in funding new
fire stations (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0), so that impacts to
the Alameda County Fire Department related to approval and construction of the
proposed project would be less-than-significant. Consistent with Eastern Dublin
EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0, proposed development on the project site will be
conditioned to meet Fire Department requirements including but not limited to
maintaining minimum water pressure and fire flow, providing adequate site
access, using fire retardant building materials and similar features. Proposed
development on the site will also be conditioned to be consistent with the City's
adopted Wildfire Management Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure
3.4/12.0). Mitigation Measures contained in the Fredrich MND will also reduce
impacts of the proposed project on fire protection
Based on discussions with Alameda County Fire Department staff, there would be
no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to fire service
beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Bonnie Terra,
Alameda County Fire Department, 7/25/13) and no new or expanded fire stations
would be needed to provide fire and emergency service for the proposed Tassajara
Highlands project. No additional analysis is required.
b) Police protection? No New Impact. Similar to fire protection, there would be no new
impact with regard to police protection, based on mitigation measures included in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. These Mitigation Measures include paying City of Dublin
public facility impact fees to assist in funding new police facilities (EDSP EIR
Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0), incorporating Police Department safety and security
requirements into the proposed project, including but not limited to adequate
locking devices, security lighting and ensuring adequate surveillance for
structures and parking areas (EDSP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0).
City of Dublin Page 69
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Based on discussions with Dublin Police Services Department staff, there would be
no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service
associated with the proposed project beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA
documents and no additional analysis is needed (source: Captain Tom McCarthy,
Dublin Police Services, 7/24/13).
c) Schools? No New Impact. No new impacts to school service are anticipated should
the proposed Tassajara Highlands project be approved since payment of mandated
statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide
mitigation of educational impacts of the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA.
There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with
respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA
documents.
d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? No New Impact.
Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of
Dublin with no new impacts in regard to this topic. New public facilities will be
required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards. There would therefore
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this
impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No new
analysis is required.
15. Recreation
Environmental Setting
No neighborhood or community parks and/or recreation services or facilities exist on
the project site. However, the City of Dublin maintains a wide range of park facilities
throughout the community.
Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which
maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in
Alameda and Contra Costa County.
The project applicant is planning to construct a recreational trail along the western side
of the project site along the east side of Tassajara Creek.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR
addressing fire and police protection include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/29.0: Ensure, as a part of the approval process, that each
new development provide its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail
corridors.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculate and assess in-lieu park fees based on the
City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credit towards parkland dedication
City of Dublin Page 70
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active
recreation use.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/36.0: Require developer to dedicate public access easements
along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate the development of trails and
staging areas.
No mitigation measures were included in the Vargas or Fredrich CEQA documents that
applied to the Tassajara Highland site.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? No New
Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would increase the use
of nearby City or regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing
the on-site permanent population on the site, although with fewer dwellings than
assumed in previous CEQA documents. No parks are proposed on the project site,
however, the project developer proposes to pay community facility fees to the City
of Dublin based on the number of expected residents in the project. These fees, in
combination with fees paid by other developers, will fund City of Dublin parks
elsewhere in the Eastern Dublin area. There would therefore be no new or more
severe significant impacts with respect to recreation than were previously
analyzed.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? See item "a," above.
16. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Setting
Roadways and freeways. The project area is served by Tassajara Road, an arterial road that
provides access from southern Contra Costa County to the 1-580 freeway and southerly
into Alameda County south of the I-580 freeway.
Existing transit service. The Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA)
provides bus service in Dublin and throughout the Tri-Valley. The Bay Area Rapid
Transit District (BART) provides regional rapid transit service with the nearest station
located at the Dublin Transit Center, located on the south side of Dublin Boulevard just
west of Arnold Road. Limited bus service is currently provided to the project site.
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. There are no marked pedestrian facilities
adjacent to the proposed project site along Tassajara Road. However, there is a striped
and paved shoulder for bicycles on either side of Tassajara Road adjacent to the project
site.
Previous CEQA documents
City of Dublin Page 71
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated traffic impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These
measures generally include construction of new roadways, widening of existing
roadways and improvements to local freeway facilities to accommodate anticipated
increases in the number of vehicles associated with the build out of the Eastern Dublin
area.
With the exceptions noted below, the EIR found that all traffic and transportation
impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with adherence to mitigation
measures identified in the EIR. A number of impacts could not be reduced to a level of
insignificance even with mitigations. These include: impacts to the I-580 freeway
between I-680 and Hacienda Drive (IM 3.3/B), impacts to the I-580 Freeway between
Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (IM 3.3/C), cumulative freeway impacts (IM
3.3/E) impacts to Santa Rita Road and T-580 Eastbound ramps (IM 3.3/I), and
cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road (IM 3.3/N).
Fredrich Project MND. This CEQA document included the following applicable
mitigation measures:
• Mitigation Measure 79 required the project developer to advance funds to the
City to acquire right-of-way and construct roadway improvements identified in
the September 25, 2005 TJKM Transportation Consultants traffic impact analysis
for the proposed Fallon Crossings Development project.
• Mitigation Measure 80 required the project developer to contribute a pro-rate
share of the cost to improve the Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound off-
ramps/Pimlico Drive intersection to include a third left-turn lane for the
eastbound off-ramp approach for this intersection.
a Mitigation Measure 81 required the project developer to pay Tri-Valley
Transportation Development (TVTD) fees for I-580 and I-680 freeway
improvements as well as TVTD fees for BART station improvements.
Vargas Project MND. The following Mitigation Measures were included in the Vargas
MND:
• Mitigation Measure 29 required the project developer to widen Tassajara Road
between North Dublin Ranch Drive and the City/County line to four lanes, in
the event this project is developed prior to the Moller Ranch/Casamira or the
Fallon Crossings projects. Additional property may be required for dedication
along the project frontage, as determined by the City Engineer.
• Mitigation Measure 30 required the project developer to pay the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact fee to the City to fund improvements at the Dublin
Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection.
City of Dublin Page 72
Initial StudyfTassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• Mitigation Measure 31 required the project developer to advance funding to the
City for acquisition of right-of-way and construction of improvements for the
project's fair share of cost at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection.
• Mitigation Measure 32 required the project developer to contribute a fair-share of
the cost to improve the Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramp/Pimlico Drive
intersection to include a third left-turn lane for he southbound off-ramp
approach as well as related improvements.
• Mitigation Measure 33 required that the southern entrance to the project site line
up with the entrance/exit for the Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley project. The
developer of this project is also required to install a traffic signal at the
intersection of Tassajara Road and the southern entrance/exit to the project.
• Mitigation Measure 34 required the final project design shall provide adequate
parking to serve the residential development. A detailed parking analysis shall
be submitted that reviews on- and off-site parking shall also be submitted in
conjunction with the Stage 2 rezoning and Site Development Review
applications.
The proposed project will be required to comply with all of the above transportation
and circulation mitigation measures.
Project Impacts
a,b) Conflict with applicable plans related to the effectiveness of the circulation system,
including all modes of travel, including intersections, streets, highways and other
components or conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including
level of service standards, travel demand measures and other applicable standards? The
Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project site with residential
land uses and adopted mitigation measures to address the impacts thereof.
Additional analysis of increased traffic and circulation impacts occurred in 2006,
as part of the Fredrich MND and in 2007 as part of the Vargas property
development.
The two approved projects would have contained up to 101 dwellings (68
dwellings on the Fredrich site and 33 dwellings on the Vargas site. The following
table compares estimated vehicle trips from the proposed Tassajara Highlands site
v. trips that would have been generated from he previously approved
development projects. The following table does not include trips generated from
the two existing residences on the site that would be removed as part of the
proposed project.
City of Dublin Page 73
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Table 2. Comparative Trip Rates-Approved v. Proposed Development
No. Dwellings A.M Peak P.M Peak Total Daily
Trips Trips Trips
Approved 101 73 88 916
Development
Proposed 54 39 47 490
Development
(Difference) 1 1 -34 1 -41 1 -426
Notes:
1) Assumes development of 33 dwellings on Vargas site and 68 dwellings on Fredrich site
2) Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th edition
Based on the above table, the proposed Tassajara Highlands project would
generate an estimated 34 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, 41 fewer p.m. peak hour trips
and 426 fewer daily trips than the current amount of approved development.
There would therefore not be a new or more severe significant impacts on the
roadway system that was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents and no
new analysis is needed.
However, if approved and constructed, the project would continue to contribute to
significant and unavoidable cumulative project impacts as part of the larger
Eastern Dublin project. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified such impacts on the
following roads and transportation facilities:
• I-580 freeway between I-680 and Hacienda Drive;
• The Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound ramps;
• The Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard/Tassaj ara
Road intersection;
• Other impacts to Tassajara Road, as identified in the EIR.
c) Change in air traffic patterns? No New Impact. The proposed project includes
residential uses and would have no impact on air traffic patterns. No new or more
severe significant impacts would result with respect to this topic than was
previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. No new analysis is needed.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? No New
Impact. Although the project includes a reduction in the number of units
compared to prior approvals, approval of the proposed project would add new
driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none
currently exist. The current development proposal will be required to comply with
current City engineering design standards and other safety standards to ensure
that no safety hazards would be created or exacerbated. No new or more severe
City of Dublin Page 74
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
significant impacts with respect to design hazards would be created than
previously analyzed. No additional analysis is needed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. A single, signalized roadway
access to Tassajara Road would be provided to serve the site. Based on discussions
with the Alameda County Fire Department, the proposed drive would provide
adequate emergency access to and from the site (source: D. Jones, Assistant Fire
Marshall, 8/15/13). No new or more severe significant impacts would result with
respect to this topic and no additional analysis is needed.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, pedestrian
facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No New
Impact. No conflicts to plans, policies or programs that promote public transit,
pedestrian use or similar features were identified with either the Fredrich or
Vargas development proposals as part of previous CEQA reviews. The current
project would include sidewalks along Tassajara Road to allow for enhanced
pedestrian circulation for future project residents. No new or more severe
significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study that has been
previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the project site. No additional
analysis is needed.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
The project area is served by the following service providers:
• Water supply and distribution: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).
• Sewage collection and treatment; recycled water: DSRSD.
• Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7.
• Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries
• Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
• Communications: AT &T
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified
overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level
of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to
develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that
all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSRSD water
system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant
City of Dublin Page 75
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures
require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development
projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded
by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This
impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0-33.0, which requires improvement to
the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees.
Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially
significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an
insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures3.5/4.34.0-38.0. These
mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will
serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially
significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of
population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant
and unavoidable impact.
Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/13 (lack of a
wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated
through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD
to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new
development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site
wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all
sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 noted an
impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new
development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer
demand from the proposed Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of
wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal
facility has been constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management
Agency and is operational. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant
capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant
level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.1, 8.0 and 9.0. No additional
analysis is needed.
No mitigation measures pertaining to utilities or service systems were contained in the
Fredrich or Vargas MND documents.
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? The current project would
contain the same type of development but fewer units than analyzed in the prior
CEQA documents. Based on recent discussions with DSRSD staff (noted below)
regarding this project, the proposed project would not exceed wastewater
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). No new or
more severe significant impacts with respect to wastewater treatment
City of Dublin Page 76
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
requirements have been identified in this Initial Study than have been analyzed in
previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
No New Impact. Water, recycled water and wastewater extensions to existing
mains in Tassajara Road would need to be constructed to serve the amount of
development proposed in the Tassajara Highland development application.
According to a representative of DSRSD, the need for increased water, wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal facilities from the construction of the proposed
project would not result in a new or more significant impact than was analyzed in
previous CEQA documents that assumed a greater amount of development on the
site (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 8/25/13).
The Tassajara Highlands project would also contribute to cumulative impacts
related to consumption of non-renewable natural resources (Impact 3.4/S, increase
in energy use though increased wastewater treatment and disposal and though the
operation of the water system (Impact 3.5/F, H, and U), and inducement of
substantial growth and concentration of population (Impact 3.5/T). All of these
impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The project still includes residential use, but with a fewer number of dwellings
than currently proposed. The previously identified impacts would be somewhat
reduced, but not to less than significant. The project would not result in any new
or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior CEQA documents.
No additional analysis is required.
c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. The proposed Tassajara
Highlands development project would require new and or upgraded drainage
facilities to support proposed development. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measures, the project developer will be required to install new or
upgraded on and off-site (if required) storm drain systems that comply with City
of Dublin and Zone 7 standards. No supplemental storm drainage impacts were
identified in other previous CEQA documents. The current project would
generally require the same type of drainage facilities as anticipated for approved
Fredrich and Vargas development projects in 2006 and 2007, respectively. No new
or more severe significant impacts are anticipated with respect to storm drain
facilities that have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional
analysis is required.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. Based on the information
provided by DSRSD staff, the District has planned for future urban uses on this
site and included such development in the District's Urban Water Management
Plan (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 8/25/13). No new or more severe significant
are anticipated with respect to water supplies than have been previously analyzed.
No additional analysis is required.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? See response to "a," above.
City of Dublin Page 77
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
e, f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. The project site is within the franchise area of
Amador Valley Industries that provides residential and commercial solid waste
pick-up and recycling services. According to representatives of the company, no
solid waste service is currently provided to the area, since it is largely
undeveloped. The topic of solid waste disposal was not identified as a potentially
significant impact in previous CEQA documents and no new or more severe
significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been
previously analyzed. No additional analysis is needed.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No
New Impact. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state
and local solid waste regulations. No new or more severe significant impacts are
anticipated impacts than have been previously analyzed and no additional
analysis is needed.
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No New
Impact. Potential impacts related to biological resources, including a reduction in
habitat area of fish or wildlife species, elimination of a plant or animal community,
or elimination of an important example of major periods of California history or
prehistory was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and prior MNDs. The proposed
project would represent less development intensity than previously analyzed there
are no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those previously identified
in the prior CEQA documents.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No
New Impacts. Cumulative impacts of the proposed Tassajara Highlands project
have been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and prior MNDs.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been
discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study.
City of Dublin Page 78
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublin
Luke Sims, AICP, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director
Michael Porto, Project Manager
Andy Russell PE, City Engineer
Obaid Khan, City Transportation Engineer
Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department
Darrell Jones, Alameda County Fire Department
Chief Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services
Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Website
DSRSD
Stan Kolozdie
Applicant Representatives
Mike O'Hara
References
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 7/2/11
Eastern Dublin General Plan, Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, Sycamore
Associates, 1996
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates &
Associates, 1996
Geotechnical Update, Dublin Highlands Project, ENGEO, Inc. July 2012
City of Dublin Page 79
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Livermore Municipal Airport Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ESA
Associates, August 2012
Parks and Recreation Master Plan. City of Dublin, 2006 update
Tassajara Highlands, Dublin CA, Environmental Noise Assessment Charles M.
Salter Associates, November 2013
City of Dublin Page 80
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014